
"fev* 




<. '•.»• 



» ^. -J 







: <T* •: 







•™ : /\ ; -S8K-* ** v ^ ; -wR-" f /^ ^ 



AN EXAMINATION 

OF THE 

HYPOTHESIS 
ADVANCED IN A RECENT PUBLICATION, 

ENTITLED 

" PALiEOROMAICA." 

MAINTAINING, IN OPPOSITION THERETO, 

THAT 

THE TEXT OF THE ELZEVIR GREEK TESTAMENT IS 
NOT A TRANSLATION FROM THE LATIN : 

AND 

VINDICATING THE ORIGINALITY OF THAT TEXT WHICH IS PRESERVED IN THE 

GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOSTOLICAL WRITINGS, AND IN 

THE WORKS OF THE GREEK FATHERS COLLECTIVELY. 

WITH OBSERVATIONS, 

ILLUSTRATIVE OF MANY WORDS, IN LESS FREQUENT USE, 

EMPLOYED BY THE APOSTLES, 

AS WELL AS OF THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THEIR STYLE. 



BY THE 



REV. WILLIAM GRANT BROUGHTON, M.A. 

CURATE OF HARTLEY WESFALL, IN HAMPSHIRE. 



LONDON : 
PRINTED FOR C. AND J. RIVINGTON, 

st. paul's church-yard, 
and waterloo-place, pall-mall. 

1823. 



TO 

THE RIGHT REVEREND 

SIR GEORGE PRETYMAN TOMLINE, Bart. 

LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, 

AND 
PRELATE OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER. 



My Lord, 

To desire that the sanction of your name 
should be bestowed upon any work not de- 
voted to the service of religion, would in me 
be a mark of great and unbecoming pre- 
sumption. But the distance between the 
highest and the lowest stations in the Church, 
is diminished by the consideration, that the 
occupiers of them are labourers together in 
the service of one common Master ; under 
the same engagements to contend with ear- 



VI 

nestneas against all opinions, which, by di- 
minishing their veneration for the written 
Word of God, may injuriously affect the 
eternal interests of mankind. In this view 
of the nature and duties of our sacred func- 
tion, I trust that a work, professedly di- 
rected against an attempt which has been 
made to detract from the authority of the 
New Testament, may without impropriety 
be offered to the notice of a Prelate, whose 
theological labours have so materially con- 
tributed to establish the Inspiration of the 
Scriptures, and to furnish a correct represen- 
tation of their doctrines. 

It is not, I am sure, in the spirit of any 
order of the Clergy, in the present day, to 
desire that any restraint should be imposed 
on a fair discussion of the claims of Chris- 
tianity to acceptance and belief ; or on the 
most strict and critical examination of its 
historical records. But it is evident that, in 
proportion to the extension of this licence, 



Vll 



our vigilance must be exerted to preserve 
the unwary from the contagion of scepticism. 
Our attention must be especially directed 
against those who sow their seed while men 
are, as it were, asleep : and who are thus 
enabled not unfrequently to effect their pur- 
posed mischief before any alarm of danger is 
excited. From solid argument and legiti- 
mate reasoning the Christian religion has 
nothing to fear ; but there is a species of 
sophistry which seeks indirectly to attain its 
end : not by avow r edly attacking the belief 
of any man, but by covertly instilling prin- 
ciples in connection with which a firm faith 
cannot long subsist; principles which, though 
they have apparently no immediate bearing 
upon the truth or falsehood of religion, yet 
generate a sceptical habit of thinking, and 
thus undermine impressions which would 
have stood firm against every open and di- 
rect assault. Against these I have written ; 
conceiving that to detect and expose such 



Vlll 



fallacies, as often as they present themselves, is 
a duty which every Clergyman owes to his own 
station, and to the welfare of that community 
which he is specially ordained to admonish 
and instruct. 

I have the honour to remain, 
My Lord, 
Your Lordship's most obedient 

And very humble Servant, 

W. G. BROUGHTON. 

Hartley Wespaix, 
October 22, IS23. 



PREFACE. 



Before the attention of the reader is directed 
to the following pages, I am anxious to explain 
to him that the reasonings which they contain 
are founded on no such assumption, as that the 
writings of the Apostles are above all scrutiny, 
and that every opinion which appears to intrench 
upon their authority must therefore a priori be 
necessarily false. That it may be proved to be 
so I have not the smallest doubt ; and therefore 
feel less hesitation in admitting that these wri- 
tings may be subjected to every scrutiny, with 
respect to their origin and internal structure, 
which can be reasonably instituted concerning 
any other compositions not professing to be of 
divine authority. This only I venture to claim 
on their behalf; that every discussion respecting 



X 



them shall be conducted temperately, and with 
the reverence which is due to the subject where- 
of they treat. 

In what language the Books of the New Tes- 
tament were originally composed, is therefore 
admitted to be a fair object of critical examina- 
tion ; and if the author of Paleeoromaica had 
been contented to give an impartial statement of 
the prevailing opinion, and of the grounds on 
which it rests, with a candid recital of the 
objections to which he conceives it liable, the 
enquiry, thus excited, might have been con- 
ducted and terminated without any injury to 
the cause of religion. 

But his scheme of argumentation, instead of 
confining itself to this single and definite object, 
branches forth into two great divisions. In the 
first of these he states, and endeavours to con- 
fute, an argument which is represented by him 
as being very generally adduced to prove that 
the Apostles would probably write in Greek. 
But, in reality, the prevalence of the Greek 



XI 

language in the Apostolic age (for that is the 
argument of which I speak) has never been as- 
serted, by accurate reasoners, to prove that the 
Apostles probably would write in Greek, but to 
shew that, in the condition of the world and in 
the circumstances of its inhabitants at the time, 
there is nothing to invalidate the evidence which 
we possess, that they actually did employ that 
language in their writings. It is a question of 
fact, not of inference; and it is, therefore, to be 
the more lamented that the author of Palseoro- 
maica has omitted to give any statement of the 
grounds on which the generally-received opinion 
rests : thus leaving it to be inferred, by all who 
cannot examine such questions for themselves, 
that they have been hitherto deceived by the 
persons, to whom, upon such subjects, they look 
for instruction, and that no valid evidence can 
be offered in support of an opinion which they 
have adopted on the authority of those who are 
regarded as the best and properest judges in 
enquiries of this nature. In the second division 
of the work is introduced the celebrated Hypo- 
thesis, that a Latin text, now no longer existing, 
was the basis of that Greek text which has gene- 

3 



Xll 



rally borne the character of being the original of 
the Apostolic writings. 

These propositions, although it be scarcely 
possible, in treating of them, to preserve them 
entirely distinct, are yet, it is evident, not mu- 
tually dependent. If the received opinion, as to 
the originality of the Vulgate Greek text, be 
well-founded, the Palseoromaican hypothesis, 
which denies that originality, must be false ; but 
it does not conversely follow that, if the last 
mentioned theory be disproved, the justice of the 
prevailing opinion will thereupon be necessarily 
established. The two Propositions, above re- 
ferred to, are therefore not mutually dependent ; 
nor, as I conceive, are they equally important. 
With respect to the main hypothesis of Palseo- 
romaica and the suppositions upon which it is 
founded, there is little difficulty in shewing that 

" — these are false, or little else but dreams, 
Conjectures, fancies, built on nothing firm ;" 

and, if the hypothesis had been the whole of the 
question, it might have been safely left to work 



Xlll 

its own confutation. But there is another, and 
more important, branch of the argument ; that 
in which no effort is omitted to prove that we 
have insufficient grounds for thinking that the 
original writings of the Apostles still survive, 
and have been preserved in the Greek New 
Testament. Upon this behalf I must observe 
that the writer who is the subject of this " Exa- 
mination," appears to belong to a class of writers 
whose object is to produce doubt rather than 
conviction ; not to fix, but to unsettle, opinions, 
by insinuating that the most general and the 
longest established persuasions of men may be 
false, rather than by shewing that their own are 
true. This purpose they strive to effect by 
assuming an air of superior candour ; by starting 
doubts which they make no effort to satisfy ; by 
affectedly suspending their opinion, even upon 
points where their own reasonings, if so forcible 
as they profess to think them, ought to have 
produced a settled conviction ; and by seeking 
covertly to instil a belief that all who oppose 
their views have some interested motive for re- 
pressing enquiry, and for discountenancing the 
pursuit and discovery of truth. The work 



XIV 

Palseoromaica itself is one of the most artful of 
its class ; nor do I remember to have met with 
any in which more real dogmatism is concealed 
under the mask of so much apparent diffidence. Its 
necessary tendency, if it be not its concealed pur- 
pose, is to excite an apprehension that, since so 
much may be said against an opinion, esteemed 
to be almost self-evident, there can be no per- 
suasion whatever founded in certainty ; none in 
support of which, if it be vigorously attacked, 
convincing evidence can be adduced. Thus, it 
is plain, a way is opened for the admission of 
universal doubt ; and it requires no sagacity to 
foresee that a mind, which can be led to think 
that the originality of the Greek text may justly 
be called in question, is trained and equipped 
for the highest flights in the regions of scepticism. 
For this reason I have been less anxious to shew 
that the Paleeoromaican hypothesis is false, than 
to prove that the common opinion is correct ; 
and to make it appear that this new theory fails, 
not so much from want of skill in the proposer, 
as from the certainty with which the Greek ori- 
ginal of the New Testament may be deduced 
from historical evidence. And, lest any who 



XV 



hold this persuasion should yet be distracted by 
an undefined apprehension that it may not be 
true, I have endeavoured to give a clear and 
popular view of the positive arguments on which 
it is founded, and a reasonable solution of the 
objections to which it has lately been considered 
liable. 



ERRATA. 

Page line 

114, 21, dele , 

115, 18, for Apostle's read Evangelist's 
163, 28, for xpeGeug read xprjcrewg 

178, 6, after pallium place , 

179, 4, for ,n?ep3 read mB33 

204, 28, /or Pbilomis Legat. ad Caium read G. D. Kypke 

Observ. Sac. in N. F. Libb. 
208, 7, for caenis read ccenis 

236, 9, 10, dele " after points and insert after advantages 
290, 24, for au read an 

29, for Apostolica read Apostolico 



AN 



EXAMINATION, 



The hypothesis of which it is" proposed, in the 
following pages, to undertake the examination, 
is so extraordinary in its nature, and, if it be well 
founded, so immediately affects the character of 
those writings which compose the New Testa- 
ment, that no apology can be necessary for an 
attempt to ascertain the degree of credit to which 
it is entitled. " There is a toy," says Lord Ba- 
con, " which I have heard, and I would not have 
it given over, but waited upon a little. They say 
it is observed in the Low Countries (I know not 
in what part), that every five and thirty years the 
same kind and suit of years and weathers comes 
about again; as great frosts, great wet, great 
droughts, warm winters, summers with little heat 
and the like ; and they call it The Prime \" The 
instance of Palaeoromaica would almost seem to 
countenance a belief, that there is a Prime in 

* '• Essay on the Vicissitude of Things." 

B 



opinions as well as in the seasons ; that is, a per- 
petual renovation and disappearance of the same, 
at stated intervals, in a certain regular cycle. After 
having, as was imagined, seen finally disposed of 
and laid at rest for ever the visionary conjecture 
of Hardouin, that the Romish Vulgate is the ori- 
ginal writing of the Apostles, and the Greek Text 
of the New Testament a mere translation from it, 
it is somewhat startling to find it rising up again 
attended by this additional paradox : that, al- 
though the Received Greek Text be nothing more 
than a translation from the Latin, it is a trans- 
lation from a text which is not preserved in 
the Vulgate, nor in any existing copy of the 
New Testament. The mere statement of this 
opinion may suffice to shew that, even if its 
establishment would excite no uneasiness as to 
the evidences of Christianity, it must at least 
render necessary a complete change in the man- 
ner in which those evidences are now stated, upon 
the supposition that the writings which collec- 
tively form the New Testament are the actual 
productions of the Apostles. For this reason, 
and because the author's hypothesis is advanced 
with the appearance, at least, of learning and 
candour, his statements require and deserve exa- 
mination ; and, I think it may be added that, as 
far as his leading and peculiar opinions extend, • 
they admit of a very satisfactory reply. 

His work is evidently the fruit of lengthened 






3 

labour and meditation ; the attention of his mind 
to the establishment of his hypothesis has never 
been relaxed ; and, whatever may have been his 
line of reading, he has found, or fancied he has 
found, something directly or remotely bearing on 
the subject of his meditations. Of himself he 
affirms that, " He has collected facts with un- 
wearied industry; stated them with as much 
fairness as he can ; and exerted his best powers 
in judging of them," (p. viii.) It is unnecessary 
for me to observe ^that, whatever may be the in- 
dustry of a collector thus circumstanced, and 
however clear may be his natural powers of dis- 
cernment, those powers are most liable to perver- 
sion when directed to the promotion of a long- 
cherished and favourite hypothesis. The judg- 
ment has no longer fair play ; the very extent and 
variety of the illustrations by which the hypo- 
thesis is surrounded, may hide, from the framer 
of it, its inherent and radical weakness ; and a 
jar inferior degree of scholarship may enable 
another to point out those defects in the offspring 
which to the parent are imperceptible. At any 
rate, the author of Paleeoromaica professes him- 
self so warm a friend to free and universal en- 
quiry, that to him no apology is necessary for 
entering, with whatever qualifications, upon the 
examination of his statements. 

I cannot but think that he is requiring more 
than will be conceded to him, when he expresses 

b 2 



4 

a desire that his work should be considered " phi- 
lological rather than theological," (p. viii.) If 
the word theological be used in the sense which it 
ordinarily bears, when referred to the controver- 
sies carried on between different sects of Chris- 
tians, the work may possibly escape that charac- 
ter which the author so greatly deprecates ; for 
it can hardly be pretended that the establishment 
of his hypothesis would give to any particular 
system of theology an advantage over those which 
differ from it b . But in reality^ their present re- 
lative situation, whatever it may be, would be 
secured to the various existing modes of belief, 
not because none of them would be affected, but 
because all would be equally affected : because 
the blow is aimed not at any particular body, but 

b I speak here only of the abstract hypothesis itself; but the 
application of it to particular texts is sometimes made to favour 
the views of those who deny the Divinity of our Blessed Lord ; 
Thus, John iii. 4$. 6 wV lv ry epavy. u It appears to me that 
ivTijt apavtpi in the above passage of our Elzevir text," (as if the 
passage were found in no other text) " is a bad translation of 
Cselestis," (p. 188.) And again, " I believe the import of this 
passage (nvzevtrz eig rov Qeov, TTfrevere Kai eig e/*e) John xiv. 1, to be, 
Trust or confide in God, trust also in me" (p. 263.) Here then 
we find advantage taken of the hypothesis to explain away the 
sense of two very important texts. What a presage do these 
observations afford, of the purposes to which such a system may 
be applied ! and of the uncertainty which the admission of one 
false supposition may introduce into the entire Word of God. 

En quantis unus portentis pullulaf; error ! 



at the system itself. The work is only not theo- 
logical, because its tendency is to destroy the 
very science of theology ; to make the question 
henceforth not so much why men are Arians or 
Arminians, Catholics or Protestants, as why they 
are Christians. Philosophy, it is notorious, that 
of nature as well as that of metaphysics, has fur- 
nished arms to infidelity ; and is infidelity so fas- 
tidious in the choice of its weapons that philology 
may not do the same ? To me it cannot for a 
moment be a matter of 4teubt, whether or no the 
abettors of infidelity would think their cause ad- 
vanced by the establishment of the hypothesis 
proposed in this work ; let theology or philology 
be the class under which it must be ranked. 
May not some lurking apprehension of this na- 
ture, in the mind of its author, be the reason why 
the object of tbe work is not more immediately 
and explicitly exhibited in its full extent ? It is 
allowed to open upon us only by degrees ; and, 
when we have finished the perusal, we find that 
we have been carried much farther than the wri- 
ter's original statement of his design gave us 
reason to expect. Thus the title page proposes 
as an object of enquiry, " whether the many new 
words in the Elzevir Greek Testament are not 
formed from the Latin ?" Herein there is appa- 
rently nothing to alarm the most sensitive appre- 
hension : most readers are prepared to admit 
the postulate, here proposed in the form of a 



6 

question, not only with respect to the Elzevir, 
but with respect to every edition of the Greek 
Testament which ever yet appeared. If it be 
true concerning one edition, it will be true con- 
cerning all : our only question will be, are there 
more new words in the Elzevir than in any other ? 
and, if not, why should the enquiry be thus limit- 
ed to that edition ? This limitation may hereafter 
appear not to have been without an objeGt : but 
to proceed. 

The next enquiry idAated to be, " whether 
the hypothesis ^tj^fc^ne Greek text of many 
MSS. is sr translation from the Latin, does not 
seem to elucidate many passages, &c. ?" This 
question has its limits somewhat extended at the 
opening of the Preface, (p. iii.) where it is stated, 
that " the main object of its author is humbly 
to enquire of persons skilled in, the Greek lan- 
guage, whether the Greek text of some MSS., 
and printed copies of the New Testament, does 
not bear very strong marks of being a translation 
from the Latin?" The imputation is here ex- 
tended from the single edition of the Elzevirs to 
some MSS. and printed copies; but the charge, 
being yet somewhat indefinite, is pointed with 
more direct aim and extensive range, (p. ix.) 
" Whatever was the primitive language in 
which the books of the New Testament were 
originally composed, and admitting that it was 
Greek* it is shewn by numerous phenomena, that 

2 



at least our Elzevir text or its basis, and indeed 
that of several other copies of the Greek Testa- 
ment in the author's possession, (none of them, 
however, so old as our received English version) 
bear strong marks of being a version from the 
Latin. It is submitted, that it seems not im- 
probable that a translated, or re-translated, text 
may (as in St. Matthew's Gospel, and various 
other remarkable instances which are exhibited,) 
have supplanted the original." From this pas- 
sage, then, we are enabled to collect the follow- 
ing propositions as e&J^biting the hypothesis 
which, by collation with existing phenomena, 
the author desires to establish. The Greek text 
of the Elzevir edition, and of some other copies 
is not the original language of the apostles, but 
is a version from the Latin. The Latin text, here 
spoken of as forming the basis of our present 
text, may not itself be the original, but may be 
a translation, or re-translation, from some other 
language. The original writings of the apostles, 
in whatever language composed, exist no longer, 
having been supplanted by the Greek version 
which is now in our possession. In all the state- 
ments here quoted there is an ostensible limita- 
tion of the charge to the Elzevir edition ; or, 
at the utmost, it extends to some other copies of 
no very great antiquity. In all this I must con- 
tend there is something like unfairness ; the ap- 
pearance of a design to entrap the unwary into 



8 

the admission of an hypothesis, without a full 
perception of the consequences which it entails, 
or necessarily involves. Of these consequences 
a glimpse, but a very imperfect one, is afforded 
in a note at p. 20 ; where, after a statement of 
the author's reasons for fixing on the Elzevir 
text, it is added, " of course, however, the ar- 
guments apply to all other MSS. and editions 
which concur with the Elzevir copies." Nothing 
can be farther from my intention than to main- 
tain, that the consequences to be deduced from 
any opinion furnish a reason for its rejection, or 
afford any criterion of its truth. This hypothe- 
sis, like every other, must be judged indepen- 
dently, by its own merits, and not by its conse- 
quences. But at the same time those conse- 
quences ought to be fully understood ; above 
all, there should be no unfair or partial statement 
of them. An author who professes to state " not 
corollaries but problems," (p. viii.) should have 
either confined himself to the establishment of 
his proposition limited to the Elzevir text, leav- 
ing others to make their own deductions, or 
else have stated fully and fairly what his argu- 
ment really embraced. If the charge were to be 
at all extended beyond its original limits, we 
ought to have been informed that it involved, by 
implication, not only all other MSS. and copies 
which agree with the Elzevir, but all other MSS. 
and copies that are, or ever have been, known to 



the world. Let us refer to any edition whatever, 
from the Complutensian down to the latest of 
Griesbach, and will it be pretended that such a 
disparity between the texts of any two of them 
can be discovered as to warrant a conclusion, 
that they were derived from sources essentially 
distinct ? If the existence in the Elzevir text of 
words " formed from the Latin," furnish " a 
very strong mark of that text being derived from 
the Latin," the existence of the same words in 
every other edition must furnish an equally 
strong proof, that they are all versions from the 
Latin. Neither, it is manifest, can the imputa- 
tion terminate with the printed copies ; it must 
mount upward, and affect the sources, that is 
the MSS. from which the editions are derived. 
This indeed, it is admitted, must be the ultimate 
effect, if it be not the immediate design, of this 
novel hypothesis. " The author trusts," he says, 
" that he will not be supposed to mean, that 
the Greek text of the Elzevir edition, 1624, was 
translated from the Latin by the editor of that 
edition, or by any other person in the seven- 
teenth century. Let the Elzevirs be supposed, 
if the reader pleases, to have printed from a MS. 
of the third century, this will not in the slightest 
degree affect the conclusions in the subsequent 
work," (p. ix.) Assume then, that the text of 
this edition affords a perfect exemplar of this 
supposed MS., that is of a MS. older by three 



10 

centuries than any which we are now acquainted 
with, and what will be the result of comparing 
it with the text of any other edition, or with any 
other MS. now extant ? Discrepancies we shall 
meet with, unquestionably many in number ; but 
estimate them collectively, and to what do they 
amount ? Like the sum of an infinite series of 
evanescent fractions, to little more than nothing. 
Take then any two MSS., or any two editions of 
the Greek Testament, lay them before any man 
of competent understanding, and say to him, 
one of these contains a version from a certain 
original, the other is not a version. Upon the 
slightest investigation he must pronounce this to 
be impossible. The variations, though numerous, 
are so unimportant, separately or collectively 
considered, while the concordances are so pre- 
valent and so striking, that you would never be 
able to persuade the most cursory inquirer, that 
the texts of these two MSS., or editions, were in 
their origin completely different : the one a ver- 
sion ; the other not a version. By way of con- 
trast to this, let us refer to the author's favourite 
instance of Simplicius ; an instance which he 
continually adduces in confirmation of his opi- 
nion with respect to the possible loss of the ori- 
ginal apostolic writings. Here we have, in the 
Aldine edition, a re-translation from the Latin 
version of Moerbeka; while the Turin MS. con- 
tains the original text of Simplicius himself. Do 



11 

we then in this case discover a series of pheno- 
mena analogous to those which any two copies 
of the Greek Testament present ? On the con- 
trary we learn, that Peyron " on collation found 
that the Turin MS., and the Venetian edition, 
though agreeing in sense, and often accompanying 
each other literally for several words, had a dif- 
ferent text'' (p. 80.) But, in the case of the 
Greek MSS. of the New Testament, we find not 
only a constant agreement in sense, but, incalcu- 
lably oftener than not, an agreement in the very 
words through entire verses and chapters. The 
variations are in no instance greater than may 
have arisen from the errors of transcribers, or the 
attempts of critics to amend the Sacred Text, by 
the introduction of their own conjectures and 
supposed improvements. In fact, although dif- 
ferent MSS. exhibit, critically speaking, different 
recensions, yet is the text in all so similar, not 
to say identical, as to prove that the same ori- 
ginal character must belong to all ; that as one is 
a version, or not a version from the Latin, so are 
all the rest ; or, to speak with more correctness, 
so is the Greek text of the New Testament itself 
without any reference to particular editions, to 
this or that recension, or to any class, of MSS. 
whatever. 

I am not, of course, to be understood as offer- 
ing these remarks by way of proof that the Greek 
Text of the New Testament, as possessed by us, 



12 

is not a version from the Latin ; but in order to 
shew what is the true and necessary extent of 
the principle laid down in Palseoromaica ; and 
that, if it can be established in the instance of 
the Elzevir edition, or of any edition or MS. 
whatever, the imputation must extend to all the 
rest. We can then have no certainty that we 
possess so much as a single word of the aposto- 
lical writings ; on the other hand it will rather be 
certainly established, that those writings have 
been totally lost to the world during a period of 
more than seventeen hundred years ! 

To enter however upon a question which, if it 
do not form the immediate subject of discussion, 
is very closely connected with it, namely, the 
original language of the Apostolical writings ; it 
is unnecessary to dispute the correctness of this 
author's opinion, that " Our Saviour preached 
in a dialect of the Hebrew language," (p. 1.) It 
is still more indisputable, that we possess no re- 
cord of his discourses in that, their original, lan- 
guage; to borrow an expression from Palaeoro- 
maica " of Him who spake as never man spake, 
not more than twelve words remain in the origi- 
nal," (p. 62.) If upon this, however, it be in- 
tended to raise a question whether or no we pos- 
sess any authentic record of his ministry upon 
earth, I must maintain that that question re- 
solves itself into another ; Were the writers who 
have left us an account of his words and actions 




13 

inspired? and did that inspiration enable them 
to compose a narrative which should represent 
the exact substance of what he did and taught, 
though in the words of another language ? So 
long as we admit in the writers of the New Tes- 
tament an inspiration of suggestion and superin- 
tendance, sufficient to secure this fidelity of re- 
presentation, and we have an assurance that the 
writings which bear their names were the imme- 
diate productions of the apostles themselves, we 
have sufficient and satisfactory grounds for a 
reasonable faith ; and our religious persuasions 
will rest on a foundation not the less solid be- 
cause the original expressions of our Lord have 
not been preserved. The apostles themselves, 
supposing us to possess their own words, form 
an unobjectionable medium of communication 
between our Lord and the Christian Church, be- 
cause they were authorized and appointed by 
him to record his sayings ; and because this de- 
legation affords a sufficient assurance that all 
which they delivered possessed the sanction of 
God Himself, and may be received as necessarily 
free from error. But, if these original and au- 
thorized writings have perished, and we possess 
nothing more than translations at first or second 
hand, executed by men who were not thus sanc- 
tioned and inspired, and who therefore did not 
possess that immunity from error with which the 
Apostles were invested, we can have no certainty 



14 

that the Scripture in our possession is really 
Scripture, or the genuine Word of God. I will 
not positively affirm that there may not, even in 
this case of the loss of the Apostolical originals, 
be grounds for faith in Christ ; but the stedfast- 
ness of our conviction must be diminished with 
the diminished authority of the instrument on 
which it rests : and it would be difficult, to say 
the least, to reply satisfactorily to objections 
which might be raised, if the Greek Text of the 
New Testament were proved not to be the origi- 
nal writing of the immediate followers of Christ. 
Its claim however to such originality I cannot 
admit to be in the slightest degree impugned by 
an inference which is attempted to be drawn from 
the dialect in which the discourses of our Lord 
were delivered. " One should have supposed/' 
it is maintained, (p. 1.) " that the most authen- 
tic documents " (it should be the only authentic 
documents) " concerning our Lord, would be 
found in his own language and that of his Apos- 
tles." But the probability, whatever it may 
amount to, arising from this circumstance, is more 
than counterbalanced by a probability of an op- 
posite nature arising from the genius of the He- 
brew language itself. That language is not formed 
for wide diffusion ; it possesses none of those qua- 
lities of fluency or precision which could recom- 
mend it to foreign nations as a medium of general 
intercourse ; and, except to those who reverence 



15 



the Sacred Writings, it is, in point of literary at- 
traction, inferior, perhaps, to any tongue that ever 
was spoken. An erroneous view of this subject 
appears to have been taken by many pious and 
learned men ; who, conceiving it to be impossible 
that the language of the Word of God should not 
be free from defect, have been greatly pained by 
the accusation of sterility which has been alleged 
against the Hebrew ; and have undertaken, more 
zealously than wisely, its defence against all such 
imputations. The truth, however, may be, that 
those very qualities, which are usually characte- 
rized as the defects of the Hebrew, adapted it to 
the purposes of Providence so long as it was de- 
signed to confine the light of revelation to the 
narrow limits of a single territory. But, when the 
partition wall between Jew and Gentile was to 
be broken down, the characteristic peculiarities 
of that language would confine and retard, rather 
than promote, the general circulation of documents 
composed in Hebrew; and it is therefore not 
reasonable to conclude that any dialect of that 
language would be employed in the records of 
the New Covenant. I write under a constant 
sense of the justness of the remarks, made by the 
author of Palaeoromaica, on the inutility, as well 
as impropriety, of any attempt to determine, a 
priori, what Providence would or would not do 
in any particular case ; and I perfectly agree with 
him in thinking that arguments from presumption 



16 

probability carry very little weight. Yet, 
since it is admitted that the Canonical writings 
of the New Testament have been preserved to 
the world in the Greek language only, when we 
are called upon to prove the originality of these 
existing Greek records, it is surely very perti- 
nent to the point at issue to shew that there is 
nothing in the character or circumstances of the 
Greek language which can militate against the 
supposition that it was employed by the Apos- 
tles : but that from its general diffusion, it was at 
least as well suited as any other for the compo- 
sition of writings which were designed to be uni- 
versally diffused and understood. The author of 
Palaeoromaica evidently betrays his sense of the 
reasonableness of this presumption by his anxiety 
to shew c that the Greek language was not so 
universally received and spoken in the age of the 
Apostles, as is generally supposed. 

The disquisition, in which he attempts to de- 
monstrate this opinion, exhibits a considerable 
extent of reading, although much of the reason- 
ing is vague and inconclusive ; and most of the 
critical inferences, as I hope to prove, cannot be 
maintained. I must however offer one prelimi- 
nary remark ; that the entire Disquisition might 
have been spared, as it forms no integral part, 
nor even a necessary adjunct of the author's hy- 



* " Disquisition I" 



17 

pothesis. The true enquiry, he often affirms, is, 
or ought to be, not concerning the original lan- 
guage of the Apostolical writings, but whether 
the present Greek Vulgate be not a translation, 
or re-translation, from the Latin. " Our argu- 
ment," he says, " is not, or, at least, need not 
be that the Apostles wrote originally in Greek, 
Syriac, or Latin," (p. 209.) Wherefore, then, 
since the consideration of the original language 
is not necessary, are all these pains bestowed to 
prove that it was not Greek ? The hypothesis 
will still stand upon its own merits ; the confir- 
mation, if any there be, derivable from internal 
structure and peculiarities of style, will be just as 
valid, upon the supposition that all the Canonical 
books of the New Testament were (as is granted 
concerning the Epistle to Philemon) originally 
written in Greek ; and that our present Greek 
text is a version of a Latin translation derived, 
through an indefinite number of intermediate 
versions, from the original Greek which no longer 
exists. But, though the hypothesis might thus 
hold together, the author of it has too much 
acuteness not to be sensible that, in proportion as 
it shall be rendered probable that the original 
was Greek, his theory will be pressed by an in- 
creasing weight of improbability. For to suppose 
that a collection of Greek records should be com- 
posed by inspired men only to disappear, and to 
have its place occupied, not supplied, by a trans- 

c 



18 

lation of a translation, also in Greek, and exe- 
cuted by men not inspired, this would not only 
seem to be unaccountable on the principles of 
human action, but even to bespeak an inconsis- 
tency in the operations of God, who does nothing 
in vain. The theory maintained in this work 
would, upon this supposition, have to encounter 
an argument (insurmountable except by direct 
and positive testimony to the fact) derived from 
the extreme improbability of the supposition; and 
therefore, although the establishment of some 
other than a Greek original do not necessarily 
form an integral part of this hypothesis, it is ne- 
cessary as a buttress to a weak part. It will 
therefore be desirable to examine more minutely 
the arguments by which it is attempted to shew 
that " the position of the universality of Greek 
in the time of the Apostles is not so incontrovert- 
ible as is usually supposed." 

Entering upon an examination of the facts 
stated by Mr. Falconer, in his Bampton Lectures, 
as confirmatory of the position last mentioned, 
the author of Palseoromaica says, " I cannot 
help observing that if the gift of tongues were 
permanent, as is generally supposed, it should 
seem there was little occasion for such a gift ; 
since no more than a knowledge of Greek would 
have been necessary," (p. 4.) Not having any 
farther acquaintance with Mr. Falconer's work 
than that which is derived from the passages 



19 

quoted in the work before nie, I cannot exactly 
ascertain what limit he observes in his argument; 
but I can hardly suppose that he applies the 
term universal, to the diffusion of the Greek lan- 
guage, in its most extensive or proper sense ; or 
that he designs to affirm more than that, at this 
period, a knowledge of Greek was very general in 
most parts of the world. This latter opinion, 
I think rests upon solid grounds ; but cannot 
admit that it leads to any inference against the 
necessity and utility of even a permanent gift of 
tongues. That gift served not only as a medium 
of communication between the Apostles and the 
people of the countries which they visited in the 
course of their ministry, but also as a mark of 
their inspiration and authority. It afforded a 
manifest assurance that God spake by them, 
and was beyond almost all other signs calculated 
to secure the attention of their hearers. Now 
a knowledge of Greek alone would not have done 
this ; not to mention that the fact of Greek 
being very generally spoken is not inconsistent 
with the opinion that there might be some coun- 
tries which the Apostles visited, in which it would 
not be understood. In every country indeed there 
must have been many who comprehended no 
other than their native language. The gift of 
tongues therefore was necessary, in order that 
the Apostles might be enabled to explain the 
nature of their errand to every congregation in 

c 2 



20 

every country (for which Greek alone, unless it 
were literally universal, would not suffice) and, at 
the same time, by the mere multiplicity of the 
languages in which they conversed, it excited, 
in all who heard them, attention to their declara- 
tions. The sensation thus excited would be si- 
milar to that which is described as having oc- 
curred at the first effusion of the Holy Spirit on 
the day of Pentecost d . From the account of 
this transaction, delivered in the passage here re- 
ferred to, the author of Palaeoromaica deduces an 
inference which proves that he misconceives the 
entire tendency of the history. " We are told," 
he says, (p. 69.) " that on the day of Pentecost, 
there were at Jerusalem strangers from Rome, 
Jews and proselytes, who wondered at the Apos- 
tles speaking in their tongue ; and that this was 
not Greek but Latin is evident from the enume- 
ration of others whose language was Greek." 
That Latin was the native language of these 
strangers from Rome, no one, I suppose, can have 
any inclination to dispute ; but to infer from this 
that many, or even the greater number of these, 
could not speak and understand the language of 
Greece, is just as reasonable as it would be to 
argue that, because German is the language of 
Vienna, the French language cannot be spoken 
by the inhabitants of that city. A still greater 

d Acts ii. 6. 



21 

degree of incorrectness appears to pervade his 
remarks on the question addressed by the chief 
captain to St. Paul e ; and far from arriving at the 
same conclusion with this author, I deduce from 
it one of a directly opposite nature. The words 
of St. Luke are — as Paul was to be led into the 
castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak 
unto thee ? who said (eWrjvi^i yivbxsicuq ; ) Canst 

thou speak Greek ? Ovk apa av u o AiyvnTiog ovtoq, 
o irpo tovtcjv T(t)v tifxtpwv ava^aTWffag Kai d^ayaytov eig 
Tt\v Eprifxov T8Q TtTpaKigy^iXiovg avSpaq twv ffiKapiwv ' 9 

The author of Palaeoromaica, adopting the sense 
of these words contained in our public version, 
" Art not thou that Egyptian which before these 
days madest an uproar, &c. ? ' conceives the 
chief captain to intimate that, having in the first 
instance supposed St. Paul to be that Egyptian, 
he was now convinced of his error on hearing him 
speak Greek ; an accomplishment which few of 
the Egyptians possessed. To me however it 
seems that an alteration in the version of the 
above passage is necessary ; an alteration which, 
although apparently unimportant, as extending 
to only one single word, and that of a trivial 
kind, gives a totally different force to the whole 
passage. 

The chief captain had entertained no previous 

c Acts xxxi. 37. 



22 

suspicion that St. Paul and the Egyptian were 
one and the same person ; but, as soon as the 
former addresses him in Greek, and in conse- 
quence solely of that circumstance, he begins to 
suspect that it may be so, and accordingly puts 
to him the above questions, which I would thus 
render into English — " Canst thou speak Greek ? 
Art thou not then (aoa) that Egyptian which be- 
fore these days madestan uproar ?" &c. The well- 
known power of apa f is to deduce a consequence 
from something which preceded ; and its usage 
in this sense is strongly marked in many pas- 
sages in the New Testament. The chief captain 
then, I say, hearing St. Paul speak Greek, has 
by that circumstance a suspicion excited in his 
mind that he may be an Egyptian ; possibly that 

f Satis perspicua erit primaria hujus Particulae et ubique do- 
minans potestas, si ipsius thema statuimus apw. Nam ut hoc 
notafc, membris sive particulis cujuslibet rei apte inter se com- 

positis, orno, apto, stabilio, frmo, compingo si hinc translata 

intelligitur similitudo ad argumentations genus quern Logici 
syllogismum dicunt, in quo tria pronunciata ordine ac legitime 
posita quam firmissimum argumentum formant, perspicuum est 
Particulee hujus in consequentiis syllogismorum officium. (Hoo- 
geven. Doctr. Partic. Vol. I. p. 107.) The syllogistical argu- 
ment, by which the chief captain arrived at his conclusion, is 
very perspicuous, although part of it only is expressed, and the 
remainder passes in his own mind. Thou canst speak Greek. 
But most of the Egyptians can speak Greek* Therefore art 
not thou the Egyptian which, &c 






23 

very Egyptian who had excited such tumult and 
terror at Jerusalem : and this conclusion he 
would hardly have formed so rapidly unless the 
qualification of speaking Greek had been very 
common, I forbear to say universal, in Egypt. 
The eagerness with which the officer catches at 
the most distant chance of his proving to be the 
Egyptian, was very natural in his situation. This 
demagogue, as we learn from Josephus, whose 
testimony Eusebius confirms, had assumed the 
character most dangerous in a rebel in Judea — 
that of a prophet ; and had carried his audacity 
to an extreme height. The wish of the Roman 
government would be proportionably strong to 
obtain possession of his person, and their muni- 
ficence, to those who should apprehend him, 
answerable to the importance of the service. The 
Roman officer, therefore, eagerly makes the en- 
quiry ; but it is not a favourable omen to the 
author of Palseoromaica, that the only mark of 
nationality on which he fixes, as characteristic of 
an Egyptian, is his speaking Greek. 

The circumstances, indeed, which attended 
the conquest and colonization of Egypt, by 
Alexander, could hardly fail of perpetuating, in 
the chief city at least, the language of the con- 
quering nation. The successions of the Aus- 
trian and French dynasties to the throne of 
Spain, and of the house of Hanover to that of 



2 



24 

Great Britain, are alluded to by the author of 
Palseoromaica, (p. 5.) But these cases are not 
analogous to that of the settlement of the 
Grecians in Alexandria. The modern princes 
did not enter their dominions in the charac- 
ter of conquerors ; nor transplant with them 
entire hordes of their own countrymen, to be 
placed, as colonists, in cities of which they 
were themselves the founders. The case of 
Alexandria, deriving its existence from the edict 
of a single monarch, affords no parallel to the 
cases of London and Madrid ; cities established 
for centuries, and in which revolution changed 
little more than the person of the monarch. But 
I would ask the author of Palseoromaica, whe- 
ther the conquest of England by the Normans 
did not introduce a foreign language into the 
country ; and whether the effects of that intro- 
duction, and strong traces of the Norman lan- 
guage, be not visible, in our own tongue, even 
to the present day. In the capital of Egypt cir- 
cumstances combined still more forcibly to intro- 
duce, and render permanent, the use of the lan- 
guage of the conqueror. In a city which had 
newly risen into existence, when the contest, in 
its mixed population, was between the languages 
of Macedonia and Judea, it was not difficult to 
foresee that the advantage must rest with the 
former, even independently of its being the Ian- 



^25 

guage of the preponderating party. If there be 
any justice in the remark of the author of Palaeo- 
romaica, that the Latin language must have pre- 
vailed in Corinth because it was a Roman colony, 
the same conclusion must obtain as to the pre- 
valence of the Grecian dialect in Alexandria, 
which was founded and inhabited by Macedonians. 
The authority of Theocritus may alone suffice for 
the confirmation of this argument ; for since, 
through his residence in Alexandria, and the 
patronage he enjoyed from its ruler, he must 
have had abundant opportunities of forming an 
acquaintance with the manners of its inhabi- 
tants, no testimony upon this question can carry 
greater weight than his. Now in the seven- 
teenth Idyll, celebrating the Ptolemies, - Lagus 
and Philadelphus, he seeks in Greece exclusively 
the materials of his eulogium ; he compliments 
them on their connection with the Grecian Her- 
cules, and with Alexander the Great ; and the 
birth and parentage of the younger Ptolemy are 
illustrated by reference to those of Diomede and 
Achilles. The imagery and sentiments of the 
poem are, with the exception of a very few allu- 
sions, entirely Grecian ; they must be admitted 
to prove that the predilections of the Egyptian 
court, and the literature of the country, were at 
that period strongly turned towards the Grecian 
model; and a necessary consequence of this 



26 

feeling was a very considerable prevalence of 
the Grecian language in Egypt. It may be al- 
leged, that this has reference only to the court of 
Alexandria, and not to the mass of the popula- 
tion. We possess, then, in the Adoniazusse of 
the same poet, a representation to which no 
such objection can apply. In this most charac- 
teristic poem we find the most natural picture of 
the manners of the populace in that busy metro- 
polis : and the notices hence acquired, concerning 
the language of the people at large, are not less 
valuable or correct because they are incidental. 
The poem in question, it is well known, describes 
the setting out of two Syracusan women of hum- 
ble condition, in company with their female 
slaves, to witness a representation, which is 
spoken of as attracting from their homes the en- 
tire population of Alexandria, (v. 44.) That the 
language spoken by these women was Greek, is 
evidently established as well by the country 
from which they emigrated as by their own 
avowal, (v. 91, 92.) In this language they are 
represented as entering into conversation with 
every stranger whom they incidentally fall in 
with ; nay, such critics of propriety are the com- 
mon people of Alexandria, that one of them calls 
these Sicilian Greeks to account for their broad 
Doric pronunciation, (v. 87, 88.) In addition to 
this, the nature of the shew itself may be ad- 
duced as leading to the same conclusion ; it is 



27 

entirely Grecian; a lamentation for the fate of 
the youthful Adonis. The choice of this subject 
for a popular entertainment might not alone 
prove any thing concerning the language of the 
people, any more than the annual representation 
of " Tamerlane," on the night when King Wil- 
liam landed, which was formerly customary in 
England, proves that our ancestors spoke the 
language of Turkey or Hindoostan. But it is 
not probable that the dramatic monologue, which 
accompanied a representation designed for the 
general amusement of the Alexandrians, would 
be recited in any language but one whiclj was 
ordinarily spoken and understood by them. Now 
it is evident that the language which Theocritus 
represents as employed by the singer, in the 
dirge or lament of Adonis, was Greek ; because 
the Syracusan women are described as under- 
standing the words of the song. And since it 
would be absurd to imagine that those words 
were intended for the amusement of these, and 
other foreigners who might happen to be present, 
rather than of the natives of the city, it is in a 
manner certain that the mass of the population 
there must have understood Greek g . 

g Before we quit this most diverting poem, the Adoniazusae of 
Theocritus, I could wish to propose an emendation of a passage 
in it which is undoubtedly corrupt, and, as it now stands, unintel- 
ligible. The example of the author of Palaeoromaica, and of 
his shameful failure in a proposed emendation of the first two 



28 

Proceeding, in the next place, to the other 
continent, we find three circumstances stated as 
evidently shewing, in this writer's opinion, that 

lines of the Hecuba, ought perhaps to deter me from any such 
attempt. His conjecture respecting the true reading of these 
lines is not only totally uncalled for, but has the singular merit 
of being the very worst critical emendation of an ancient writer 
that was ever yet proposed. (See Pal. p. 398.) It would have 
provoked in the matchless editor of the Hecuba, had he been 
yet living, a fit of laughter, or a fit of spleen. My own emenda- 
tion, however, is I trust so far excusable, as it relates to a passage 
which has been given up as desperate by all the critics. The 
ninety-fourth and ninety-fifth verses are read as follows in the 
editions : 

Mr] <pvy, MfXirwfof, 6q afiwv Kaprepog an 
UXav kvog' etc aXeyo), /in /not Keveav airofia^iig. 

It is unnecessary to enumerate the many unsuccessful at- 
tempts which have been made by all the editors of Theocritus, 
to deduce some meaning from these lines as they stand, or to 
supply, from conjecture, a better reading. The most consider- 
able of these may be seen in Briggs's late edition of the Greek 
Bucolic poets from the Cambridge University press ; or in 
Valckenaer's edition of Theocritus^ p. 387. The result of the 
enquiry is summed up by the latter scholar in these words : 
* ' His animadversis Lector incertior hinc abibit quam venerat." 
By a slight correction however a clear and appropriate meaning 
is restored to the lines, which I propose to read thus : 

Mi? <pvy, MtXiTUidzg, 6g afiwv ttaprcpog tirf 
UXav kvog' ovk aXoxv pa eouce, veav, atzora\au 

Praxinoe, in reply to the rebuke of the stranger, contemptuously 
exclaims, O Proserpine, let there not be who may have the rule 
over us except one (i. e. her husband) ; it's a becoming thing, 



29 

the Greek language was but slightly prevalent 
in Judea. The first of these is the inscription 
affixed by Pilate to the cross of Christ, written, 
as the Evangelist informs us, " in Hebrew, 
Greek, and Latin." " If," he says, (p. 13.) 
" the common Jews could not have understood 
an inscription of a few words, unless it had been 
written in their own language, we may judge of 
their ability to understand a whole Gospel." Is 

forsooth, young man, to lay your commands on one who is not your 

wife ! This expression is very characteristic of the speaker, and 

suitable to the occasion : and every part of the emendation, I 

believe, may be supported. Notandum est hoc adverbium (a*) 

non tantum nominibus adjectivis, verbis, particulis, et aliis adver- 

biis, verum etiam substantivis prsemitti. Thucyd. lib. iii. cap. 

95. 'Q Q a irpoetdiZavTO dia Ti\g Aevicatiog rrjv OY nEPITEIXISIN* 

Addatur Lucian in libro, qui Verarum Historiarum men- 

titur titulum, primo. Vide Clariss. Duker : ad Thuc. lib. 

i. cap. 37. Viger. de Id. p. 160. § 13. cap. 7. Similarly 

St. Paul, Rom. X. 19, cyw 7rapa£)f\w<rG> vfiag tir bk &vti. I will 

provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people.— Ma 

iffoSwafisi Ty ftatai ut hie quidam putant jurijurando et affirma- 

tioni servire, et idem valere ac integram lectionem Doricam pa ya 

i.e.ftarsp ya. JEschyl. Swppl. v. 897 et 906, /xa ya. JEmil. 

Tortus, in Lex. Dor. v. Mattairii. Dial. Sturz. p. 324 — vtav. See 

Sturzius de Dial. Maced. et Alex. (p. cxcii. ed Valpy) v. Meytraveg 

Hue etiam refero quae Apollonius Dyscolus in grammatica sua 

scripsit (v. Vossii ex ea excerpta ad calcem libri Mattairiani de 

Gr. dial. p. 571.) £?iv ow Tpiafieyvzog, Kai irapa tovto /ityirav, Zvvog 

ri kcli %vvav ttpafiev de ev irepoig Kai irapa to vsoq vtav. et Phavorinus 

in v. veaviag, irapa to viog yivtrai vtav. This seems indeed to have 

been a word peculiarly Alexandrian ; and Salmasius conjectures 

that its termination was copied by the Egyptians from the Persian. 



30 

it necessary to repeat my disavowal of an opinion, 
so pertinaciously imputed by this author to those 
whom he opposes ; that the Greek language was 
universally spoken in any country whatever, ex- 
cept in Greece Proper, and in the Grecian colo- 
nies ? The utmost which I desire to maintain is, 
that in Judea there was, at this period, a very 
prevalent acquaintance with Greek ; and I am 
very much mistaken if this inscription of Pilate 
do not prove the fact. The state of the country, 
in a few words, was this : the Romans governing ; 
the Jews in subjection. The latter forming the 
bulk of the inhabitants ; but having a great in- 
termixture of the former nation; especially in 
Jerusalem. To each of these component por- 
tions of the population it was natural that every 
proclamation should be addressed in their own 
language ; because, whatever might be the case 
with the greater number of individuals, there 
must have been still many who were acquainted 
with no other than their native language. This 
then accounts for the use of Latin and Hebrew 
in the inscription; just as at this time, in a city 
somewhat similarly circumstanced, the city of 
Calcutta, we should expect to find proclamations, 
designed for general circulation, drawn up in 
English and Hindoostanee. But the inscription 
was affixed also in Greek : and why should 
Greek be used ? That was not the native lan- 
guage of either the conquerors or the conquered. 



31 

It is, indeed, a circumstance not to be accounted 
for, unless we suppose that there was yet ano- 
ther component part of the population consisting 
of those to whom the Greek language was more 
familiar than any other ; and that this class con- 
sisted not of a few individuals only, but was so 
numerous as, in affairs of public interest, to de- 
mand equal attention with those who spoke He- 
brew and Latin. If, to resume a former illus- 
tration, we were to meet with a proclamation 
drawn up in English, Hindoostanee, and Portu- 
guese, should we not without hesitation con- 
clude, even if we were not informed whence it 
originated, that it must be designed for circula- 
tion and publicity in some East Indian settle- 
ment, now under the government of England, 
but in which (and there are such instances) the 
language of its former possessor, Portugal, was 
still very generally prevalent ? And is not this a 
case precisely analogous to the Latin, Hebrew, 
and Greek inscription, exhibited by a Roman 
governor in the country of the Jews ? The prac- 
tice thus adopted in the instance of our Lord 
leads indeed to a still more extensive inference. 
This happened in Judea ; but we are not in- 
formed, nor have we any reason to believe, that 
the Romans here departed from the usual prac- 
tice of their government : or that, in the circum- 
stances of Jerusalem, there was any thing so pe- 
culiar as to introduce there a different rule from 



32 

that, which, in similar cases, prevailed in other 
foreign cities under their jurisdiction. 

If Pilate, then, in this instance acted accord- 
ing to the general practice of his government, it 
would seem that their ordinary custom, in all the 
conquered countries, was to make proclamations, 
intended for general information, in the language 
of the country itself, in Latin, and in Greek. The 
first two, being the languages of the governed 
and the governors, are, as was observed, natu- 
rally accounted for ; but I see not what grounds 
can be assigned for the general adoption of Greek, 
unless Greek were very generally spoken and 
understood in all the great cities within the com- 
pass of the Roman empire. In the case of Jeru- 
salem it is no sufficient answer to say, that at the 
time of the Passover great multitudes of Greeks 
were attracted thither by the ceremonial of reli- 
gion, or for the purposes of trade ; and that, for 
the information of these, recourse was had by 
Pilate to their own language. Was there not, at 
the same period, also a concourse of " Parthians 
and Medes and Elamites, and of dwellers in Me- 
sopotamia," and from every nation under heaven? 
Yet we find not that any of these were held in 
such consideration as to have an inscription in 
their tongue appropriated for their information. 
Neither is it possible to account for such a provi- 
sion having been made for the Greeks, and for 
such as spoke their language, except by suppos- 



33 

ing that these together formed so great and as- 
signable a part of the whole population as to en- 
title them to this notice : and in this, I must 
repeat, there is no reason to suppose that there 
was any thing peculiar to Jerusalem; any thing in 
which the other great cities of the empire did not 
all and equally participate. 

Concerning this inscription Doctor Paley re- 
marks k , " That it was also usual, about this time, 
to set up advertisements in Jerusalem in different 
languages, is gathered from the account which 
Josephus gives of an expostulatory message from 
Titus to the Jews, when the city was almost in 
his hands ; in which he says, Did ye not erect 
pillars with inscriptions on them in the Greek and 
in our language, ' Let no one pass these bounds ? ' " 
The remark of the author of Paleeoromaica on 
this passage is, "To what purpose an inscription 
in any language but Greek if Greek, as is assumed, 
was universally known ? " Again, disclaiming any 
such assumption, let me observe that, under any 
circumstances, common sense would dictate the 
employment of the Latin tongue in an address to 
a Roman army ; because it was certain that this 
would be understood by every native Roman in 
its ranks ; while, with respect to any other lan- 
guage, (Greek for example) it could not be cer- 
tain, but only very probable, at the utmost, that it 

k Ev. Par. ii. c. vi. § 24. 
D 



34 

would be intelligible to any considerable number. 
That the Jews might very safely have trusted to 
Greek alone, and that the purport of an adver- 
tisement in that language would have been very 
generally understood by the Roman soldiers, is 
exceedingly probable ; but it cannot be denied 
that, as far as the native Romans were concerned, 
this end was more certainly answered by the addi- 
tion of a Latin inscription. But it is well known 
that a Roman army consisted, neither wholly nor 
in the greater part, of native citizens; many 
thousands of mercenaries, proceeding from every 
country of Europe, Asia, and Africa, bordering 
on the Mediterranean, were found under the 
command of every general, and therefore of Titus. 
Since then the Jews, not having the power to 
address themselves to this mixed multitude in 
each of their several languages, would select in 
addressing them, that language which they be- 
lieved to possess the quality of being intelligible 
to the greatest number, it will surely be granted, 
from their employment of Greek, that this lan- 
guage was considered, at that period, as more 
universally diffused than any other : and this is all 
for which I think it necessary to contend. 

I must yet beg leave to extend to one other 
instance, this practice of deducing from the same 
passage a conclusion directly the reverse of that 
which the author of Palseoromaica endeavours 
to establish. From Hamilton's Strictures on 



35 

Knowles's Primitive Christianity, he copies a quo- 
tation from Josephus \ " Now Simon and John, 
and they that were with them, desire a con- 
ference with Titus, which he granted. He placed 
himself on the western side of the inner court of the 
temple, and there was a bridge that parted them. 
There were great numbers of the Jews waiting 
with these two tyrants, and there were also Ro- 
mans on the side of Titus. He ordered his sol- 
diers to restrain their rage, and to let their darts 
alone, and appointed an Interpreter m ." This pas- 
sage is adduced by Mr. Hamilton, to prove that 
the Greek language was " totally unknown' among 
the Jews. " For what occasion," he observes, 
" for an Interpreter if the leaders of the Jews were 
acquainted with the Greek language, of which 
Titus cannot be supposed to have been ignorant, • 
it being a necessary part of the education of the 
Roman youth of distinction ? " Whether the 
leaders of the Jews understood Greek or not is 
here nothing to the purpose ; the utmost which 
this passage can be admitted to prove is, that 
they were unacquainted with Latin : for that 
language, it is certain, and not Greek, would be 
employed by Titus in this conference. Has the 
author of Palaeoromaica so soon forgotten the 
passage quoted by himself (p. 29) from Valerius 
Maximus? (1. ii. c. 2) where speaking of the 

1 Booh I. vii. c. 6. § 2. m Pal. p. 14. 

d2 



36 

Roman policy, that writer says, " Inter cetera 
obtinendse gravitatis indicia, illud quoque magna 
cum persev.erantia custodiebant ; ne Grsecis qui- 
dem nisi Latine responsa darent. Quinetiam, 
ipsa linguae volubilitate, qua plurimum valent, 
excussa, per ifiterpretem loqui cogebant, non in 
urbe tantum nostra, sed etiam in Grsecia et Asia/' 
If this were their systematic treatment of the 
Greeks, whom, as a nation, they professed to 
reverence 11 and did reverence, if they forced 

n " Quapropter incumbe toto animo et studio omni in earn ratio- 
nem, qua adhuc usus es, ut eos, quos tuae fidei potestati que se- 
natus populus que Romanus commisit et credidit, diligas et omni 
ratione tueare ; ut esse quam beatissimos velis. Quod si te sors 
Afris, aut Gallis praefecisset, immanibus ac barbaris nationibus, 
tamen esset humanitatis tuae consulere eorum commodis, et utili- 
tati saluti que servire. Cum vero ei generi hominum praesimus, 
non modo in quo ipsa sit, sed etiam a quo ad alios pervenisse 
putatur humanitas, certe us earn potissimum tribuere debemus, 
a quibus accepimus. Non enim me hoc jam dicere pudebit — 
nos, ea quae consecuti sumus, his studiis et artibus esse adeptos, 
quae sint nobis Grcecice monumentis disciplinis que tradita. 
Quare praeter communem fidem, quae omnibus debetur, praeterea 
nos isti hominum generi praecipue debere videmur, ut quorum 
praeceptis sumus eruditi, apud eos ipsos, quod ab iis didicerimus 
velimus expromere," Cicer. ad Q. Fr. Lib. i. 9. It is unnecessary 
to quote passages to prove the degree of aversion and contempt 
with which the Jews were regarded by the Romans. It was im- 
possible that this national feeling should be more forcibly ex- 
pressed than by the refusal of Vespasian, when he triumphed 
for his successes in Syria, to accept the title of Jadaicus ; consi- 
dering it as a mark of opprobrium rather than of honour, Dio. in 
Vespas. In these feelings it is more than probable that his son, 
the leader of the above-named conference, fully participated. 



37 

them, even in their own country, to employ an 
interpreter in their intercourse with the Romans, 
it is far from probable that, towards the Jews, the 
latter would assume a more condescending de- 
portment. It was not towards those whom they 
regarded as the basest and most contemptible of 
mankind, that they would relax any of the " ob- 
tinendae gravitatis indicia," or swerve, in nego- 
ciating with them, from their customary employ- 
ment of the Roman language. To this we may 
add, that the obstinacy of the Jews was at least 
equal to the haughtiness of their besiegers ; and 
that this feeling might induce Simon and John to 
insist on an adherence to their national dialect 
also, and to speak only in Hebrew. Here then 
were two reasons for the intervention of an inter- 
preter, however perfectly we may suppose both 
parties in this conference to have been versed in 
Greek. 

On the Roman side we must conclude that 
this was no uncommon acquirement, since we 
find that Josephus, having composed a history 
of the Jewish war in the Chaldaic tongue, for 
the use of the Parthians, Babylonians, Ara- 
bians, and other Eastern nations, translated it 
afterwards not into Latin but into Greek: " in 
order," to use his own words, *? that some of 
the Romans, who were not in the wars, might not 
be ignorant of these things °." For the purpose 

Bel. Jud. in Prooemio. 



38 

of investigating the extent to which the literature 
and language of Greece were diffused in Rome, 
at the beginning of the Christian era, it is surely 
unnecessary to go back to a period antecedent to 
this by nearly five hundred years ; when the 
laws which were afterwards arranged in the 
twelve tables, were imported from Greece. How 
slight, in every respect, is the resemblance be- 
tween the Romans of this early period, and their 
descendants under Augustus and Vespasian! 
All that we can conclude from this narration p is, 
that, from the very dawn of their history, the 
attention of the Romans was turned towards 
Greece as the source of every valuable institu- 
tion : as at a later period they regarded that 
favoured clime as the mother of the noblest arts, 
and of every elegant refinement. There cannot 
be a more forcible proof of the very general and 
familiar manner in which the Grecian language 
was employed at Rome in the age of Nero, than 
is derived from a circumstance mentioned by 
Suetonius. Towards the conclusion of the reign 
of that emperor, the citizens began to exhibit 
strong demonstrations of impatience at continu- 
ing so long subject to his odious dominion. Va- 
rious were the devices employed to excite the 
popular indignation ; and among the rest, says 
that historian, " Statuae ejus a vertice currus 

p Pal p. 21. 



39 

appositus est cum Inscriptione Giueca, 
JVimc demum agona esse, et Traheret tandem*" If 
it be necessary that any production whatever 
should be drawn up in language generally in- 
telligible, it must be one which, being designed 
to excite a popular commotion, is addressed to 
the lowest of the populace. Such was the in- 
tention of the device and inscription mentioned 
by Suetonius ; and the anonymous contriver of 
it, by employing the Greek language, must have 
defeated his own intention, unless the lowest 
classes had been so familiar with it as to be 
capable of understanding this summons to in- 
surrection. 

Looking then at the evidence adduced by the 
author of Paleeoromaica in support of his opinion, 
we find that it leads, in general, to a directly 
contrary conclusion ; namely, that a knowledge 
of the Greek language was very prevalent, in most 
countries, in the age in which the Gospels were 
written". All which I think it necessary to 

q Suet. Nero. lib. vi. 45. As Casaubon conjectures, Nw ya^ 

tr ay<i)v, vvv Set tkavvtiv. 

r We have an incidental confirmation of the same truth fur- 
nished by Dio. Chrys. {Or. ix. p. 138.) who relates that Dio- 
genes, the Cynic, being at Corinth at the time of the celebration 
of the Isthmian games, went down to the Isthmus ; and that 
there came around him as auditors, not the Corinthians only, 
the Ionians^ Italians, and Sicilians, but some of those who were 
from Africa, of those who came out of Thessaly, and from the 
Borysthenes. It is scarcely conceivable that those persons 



40 

maintain is that some, a considerable number, in 
almost every country, understood Greek ; but, 
that the knowledge of it was in any proper 
sense universal, is an assertion which, although 
it may suit our author's purpose to attribute it 
to his opponents, he must allow me, again and 
finally, to disclaim any intention of supporting. 
The purposes of God, as far as is permitted us to 
judge of them, did not require the employment 
of an universal language ; because it does not 
appear to have been designed that the claims 
and statements of the Gospel should be instantly 
submitted to universal examination. It was 
enough if, in every country, there should be 
found men capable of understanding the original 
documents, and of testifying to their authen- 
ticity ; as a foundation for the faith of their 
own and after-ages. This point being secured, 
and prophets and interpreters ordained in every 
church, there was sufficient certainty obtainable, 
wherever the Gospel was preached, to satisfy 
the mind of every humble and devout enquirer 
after truth ; and the contents of the Sacred 
Writings of the New Testament became readily 
known, even by those who were unacquainted 
with the language of the original. We shall but 
mislead ourselves, in seeking what cannot be 

would have hastened down with curiosity to listen to a Greek 
philosopher, unless they had understood the language in which 
his harangue was delivered. 



41 

found, if we undertake the search after a lan- 
guage through the medium of which the records 
of the Apostles might become directly and uni- 
versally accessible in every nation. There is 
not, there never has been, such a language ; nor, 
as has been observed, did the purposes of God 
require it. The doctrine of Christ was not de- 
signed to burst with a sudden and resistless 
flood of light upon mankind at large ; but, from 
the smallest beginnings, and through many ob- 
stacles, gradually to win its way to universal 
acceptance ; and, step by step, to accomplish 
the evangelism of the world. We must remem- 
ber the emblems under which it is represented : 
the leaven, hid and overwhelmed for a time in 
the midst of a mass, through every particle of 
which it is destined eventually to penetrate ; the 
grain of mustard-seed, from its original minute- 
ness overlooked by careless observers, rising by 
degrees to the form and dimensions of the cedar 
of the forest. The very principle of such a sys- 
tem renders a partial developement necessary at 
first. The miracles of our Lord, on which his 
claim to a divine character was founded, were 
performed before such crowds as casually came 
together, and without any care being taken to as- 
semble the greatest possible number of spectators. 
Even the last great miracle of his resurrection 
was avouched to the senses of only a few chosen 
witnesses. The only provision for the making 



42 

of which, great care seems to have been taken, 
was this ; that there should be sufficient moral 
proofs of the certainty of these events, to serve as 
the foundation of a reasonable faith in those, who 
were not, and could not be, eye and ear- witnesses 
of them. The case of the composition and pub- 
lication of the Gospel records is precisely analo- 
gous to this. They were composed in a lan- 
guage which some, which a great many, in almost 
every country, could understand. They were 
therefore sufficiently open to instant examination 
and remark, to prevent the possibility of an un- 
true or spurious narrative obtaining currency in 
the world. Suppose the Apostles not to have 
written in Greek, but in Latin, or in any other 
language that you please ; still, more than this 
could not have been done, and I humbly profess 
to think that more was not intended. 

It seems therefore to be an useless undertak- 
ing to engage in a lengthened disquisition con- 
cerning the absolute extent to which a know- 
ledge of the Greek tongue prevailed in the apos- 
tolic age. There is, I conceive, an end of the 
argument, if it can be shewn that there existed 
in the world a knowledge of Greek sufficient to 
enable a writing in that language to effect the 
purposes which God had in view. Now it is no 
longer matter of conjecture whether a Greek 
writing can effect those purposes, namely, the 
making known and preserving the facts and doc- 



43 

trines of the Gospel, because it is matter of re- 
cord and of observation that a Greek writing has 
done this. The writings of the Apostles, histo- 
rical and epistolary, have, it is well known, 
come down to us only in the Greek language. 
From the days of Clemens, and Ignatius, down- 
wards, from the time when our religion was in 
its cradle, the world has had no other ultimate 
appeal than to a Greek original : and if any writ- 
ing antecedent to this ever existed, whether a 
Syriac, a Latin, or a Greek text different from 
that which is now in our hands, it perished too 
soon to exercise any influence on the faith even 
of those who came nearest to the age of the 
Apostles. Whatever religion the world had then, 
or possesses now, has been derived directly from 
a Greek New Testament. It is therefore, I re- 
peat, needless to enquire within what limits that 
tongue was familiarly spoken ; because were we 
even to admit that it was never understood be- 
yond the bounds of Attica and the Peloponnesus, 
it would yet remain an indisputable fact that it 
has effected, in the service of religion, all which 
could have been required of a language, if such 
there were, the diffusion of which was as un- 
limited as that of the light of heaven. The 
Greek language was sufficient to accomplish, be- 
cause, under the loss of the supposed originals, 
it has accomplished the purposes of God ; and 
this is a sufficient reply to the enquiry why it 



44 

was employed. Other languages, it is possible, 
might have equally accomplished the end pro- 
posed ; but this is a question which it is impos- 
sible for us to determine ; and which we have 
therefore little right to meddle with \ But is it 

s The contest for pre-eminence, with respect to extent of dif- 
fusion, lies principally between the Latin and Greek languages ; 
and the enquiry made by some is why Latin was not employed 
by the Apostles ? It is not our province to penetrate into the 
counsels of Providence, and to determine the principles by 
which they were directed in any particular case ; but I think 
that a reason may be assigned why the employment of Greek 
in the Apostolical writings may have been preferably directed ; 
even though the Latin tongue were, in that and after ages, as 
widely diffused and as well understood. The key to the reason 
is furnished by the following remark of a writer whose calmness 
of imagination protected him against the danger of setting up 
imaginary causes. " Immediately after speaking these great 
things to St. Peter, (thou art Peter, and upon this rock, &c.) 
our Lord, as it were with a particular view, that it might be 
left upon record as a guard against the extravagant opinion 
which he foreknew future ages, for the purposes of tyranny and 
worldly dominion, would entertain of St. Peter's personal autho- 
rity, our Lord, I say, takes occasion in his very next discourse 
to rebuke him with a sharper severity than he ever used towards 
the rest of his disciples. — Of the same kind seems to be our 
Saviour's affecting, as it were, to speak always with very small 
respect of the blessed Virgin, ' Woman, what have I to do with 
thee?'" &c. Dr. Clarke's Works, fol. vol. ii. p. 458. Tenth 
Occas. Serm. A similar reason* I think, may have prohibited 
the employment of the Latin language by the writers of the 
New Testament ; namely, that the arrogance of the Romish 
Church, and its suppression of the Scriptures, might not pass 



45 

unreasonable to say that a language which, by 
the event, is proved to possess the qualifications 
confessedly desirable, if not indispensable, under 
the given circumstances, has a stronger claim to 
be considered as the language selected by the 
Almighty, than other languages which, not hav- 
ing been subjected to such a test, may or may 
not possess the properties necessary to qualify 
them for so important a trust ? 

In coming to the more immediate considera- 
tion of the question, whether the Vulgate Greek 
Text of the New Testament be a translation, or 
re-translation, from the Latin, it cannot escape 
observation that, if any man shall choose to 
maintain such an opinion, it is impossible, strictly 
speaking, to prove a negative. The facts of the 
case are these. We have before us a Greek text 
which all the world (Father Hardouin always 
excepted) has hitherto agreed in regarding as the 
original ; and from which all the translations now 
extant have been, mediately or immediately, de- 
rived. No such anterior text, as that which is 
contemplated as the basis of the Greek, is now 

beyond all bounds. Compelled as that Church is to use a trans- 
lation of the New Testament in its own service, we still see 
how obstinately it attempts to shackle the consciences of men, 
by denying their right to search the Scriptures, and by confining 
salvation within its own pale. What then would its pretensions 
not have been if it could have appealed to the Apostolical writ- 
ings delivered to it originally in its own language. 



46 

in existence ; not a fragment of any such, as far as 
we are aware, has come down to us ; neither was 
its existence ever spoken of, nor the cause of its 
disappearance attempted to be accounted for, 
until the author of Palseoromaica assumed the 
first of these points, but unfortunately neglected 
to furnish any explanation of the latter. Such 
then being the facts of the case, it can scarcely 
be deemed unreasonable to say that, against the 
presumption hence arising in favour of the ori- 
ginality of the Greek text, nothing but the most 
positive evidence, the most express and irrefra- 
gable proofs to the contrary, can be admitted to 
prevail. Still, I must repeat, if any man will 
seriously maintain the position, that our present 
Greek text is nothing more than a translation 
from a Latin text which has perished, it is im- 
possible to prove a direct negative : the case 
does not admit of it. Not that I would be 
thought to argue as if my opinion were that any 
such burden could fairly be thrown upon those 
who stand opposed to the hypothesis of Palaeo- 
romaica ; the obligation lies upon the proposer of 
that hypothesis to shew, by reasonable arguments, 
that the world has hitherto entertained a false per- 
suasion ; that the theory which he promulgates 
grows naturally out of certain previously esta- 
blished propositions ; and, when applied to the 
facts of the case, appears to be consistent with 
itself, and to furnish a solution of difficulties, 



47 

otherwise insurmountable, without introducing 1 
other and greater difficulties in their stead. 

We shall discover in the sequel how far the 
theory of Palaeoromaica complies with these re- 
quisitions. In the mean time the arguments, 
by which it is defended, may be classed under 
two heads : the first external, derived from the 
greater probability, which this writer maintains 
to exist, that Latin rather than Greek would be 
the language employed in many at least of the 
Apostolic writings ; the second internal, derived 
from an examination of the writings themselves. 
With respect to the first of these classes I shall 
here only observe, that an inspection of the state 
of the world, in the Apostolic age, exhibits a 
very general acquaintance with the Greek lan- 
guage ; an acquaintance which must be deemed 
sufficient to account for its adoption by the in- 
spired writers. What is still more to the pur- 
pose, a Greek text, professing to be of their pro- 
duction, has come down to us, and has, beyond 
dispute, effected the important purposes of main- 
taining and extending a knowledge of Chris- 
tianity in the world. We have a right to say, 
that this extension is as wide as the original 
itself, whose existence is assumed, could have 
produced, and as complete as God designed it 
should be. For otherwise, he would surely 
have interposed for the preservation of this sup- 
posed antecedent text, by the agency of which 



48 

alone his purposes could be completely effected. 
This, to say the least, affords a very strong pre- 
sumption that the text, which has thus carried 
the Gospel to its appointed limits, is the origi- 
nal word of God. The second class of argu- 
ments, namely those which are derived from an 
analysis of the Greek text itself, require a more 
extended examination. 

If, on inspection of any work, we find it to be 
written in a style perfectly different from any 
which we have good grounds for believing the 
reputed authors would have employed, or in a 
style which is ascertained not to have prevailed 
until some ages after that in which the work 
claims to have been produced, it is certainly in- 
cumbent on those, who maintain it to be the com- 
position of such an author and of such a period, 
to account, by probable reasons, for the appear- 
ances here noticed ; and any failure on their part 
to do this, would render the correctness of their 
opinion very problematical. Let us refer to the 
celebrated instance of Phalaris. I do not speak 
of the anachronisms, the mistakes in geography, 
and as to plain matters of fact, which the great 
detector of this forgery adduced as conclusive 
evidence, that the Epistles were not written by 
their reputed author, or in the age and country 
to which they professed to belong. It is not pre- 
tended that any analogous errors are discoverable 
in the writings of the New Testament ; nor could 



49 

such an objection indeed be urged by one, whc* 
admits that the prototypes of these writings were 
the actual production of the Apostles. His argu- 
ment reaches only to the unsuitableness of the 
style and language of the Greek Testament to the 
reputed era and circumstances of its authors. A 
precisely similar objection is urged in the case of 
Phalaris. " Had all other ways failed us of de- 
tecting this impostor, yet his very speech had 
betrayed him : for his language is Attic ; — but he 
had forgotten that the scene of these Epistles was 
not Athens but Sicily, where the Doric tongue was 
generally spoken and written ; — How comes it to 
pass then that our tyrant transacts every thing in 
Attic *? ' These questions bore closely upon the 
point at issue ; and they were fatal to the advo- 
cates of Phalaris, who were unable satisfactorily 
to reply to them. It was not the mere detection 
of this peculiarity in the writings attributed to the 
Sicilian prince, but it was the impossibility of 
accounting for it, consistently with what is known 
with certainty respecting his history, which led 
directly to the conclusion, that he could not be 
the author of the Epistles bearing his name. 
Taking a similar objection in the case of the 
Apostles, the author of Palseoromaica urges, that 
the style of the books attributed to them is un- 
classical ; filled withbarbarous and hybrid phrases;: 

*' Bentleys Diss, on Phal. § xii. p. 310—323. ed. 1817. 

i 



50 

abounding in foreign idioms and unauthorized 
forms of speech; exhibiting some Hebraisms, 
although the greater number of what go under 
the name of Hebraisms are in reality Latinisms ; 
and that so many traces of a Latin original are 
every where visible as to afford reasonable ground 
for thinking that the entire substratum of the pre- 
sent Greek text was composed of that material. 
Now it is evidently here assumed, that the Apos- 
tles must have written with greater elegance and 
correctness than are visible in the received text 
of the Greek New Testament ; that if we had the 
originals themselves they would display none of 
the peculiarities of style and phraseology here 
enumerated. The entire question, therefore, as in 
the previous case of Phalaris, is, Can we account 
for such appearances, and are they consistent with 
the belief that the writings, in which they are 
found, came from the hands to which they are 
attributed ? 

With respect to the first charge, that the style 
of the Greek New Testament is unclassical, al- 
though some well-meaning persons have attempt- 
ed its refutation, representing it as an imputation 
on the credit of the Gospel itself, we may surely 
on more reasonable principles maintain, that it 
would have been strange had it been otherwise. 
Would it not have been a circumstance justly 
productive of suspicion, if the Apostles, repre- 
senting themselves as mean and illiterate persons, 



51 

not even natives of any part of Greece, had yet 
delivered to us their compositions in a highly po- 
lished style, adorned with those graces and re- 
finements of expression which areusually acquired 
only by a long familiarity with the best models of 
literature ? It might then have been asked, in the 
words of Bentley, How come our Galilean fisher- 
man to transact every thing in Attic ? nor do I 
very well see what reply could have been made 
to such an objection. But, unquestionably, the 
language which they do employ lays the authen- 
ticity of their writings open to no such suspicion; 
for their style is such, in point of refinement and 
purity, as might be expected from the inhabitants 
of a rude and remote province, whose occupations 
had been, of all others, the least likely to render 
them familiar with any dialect superior to that, 
which persons of their own rank employed in the 
common intercourse of life. The author of Pa- 
lseoromaica, who, while he professes to reverence 
the Christian faith, exhibits too often a very un- 
becoming sympathy with its infidel opposers, 
quotes, and apparently approves (p. 473,) the 
flippant attack of the superficial Shaftesbury on 
the inspiration of the writers of the New Testa- 
ment : where the whole force of the sneer, for 
reasoning it cannot be called, is made to rest on 
the imperfection of their style. But with what 
justice is purity or impurity of language made 

e2 



52 

the test of inspiration u ? or what ground is there 
for assuming that the Spirit of Truth would bestow 
on the Apostles any skill, in the arts of composi- 
tion, beyond what they previously possessed ? 
It is very manifest that, whether we consider 
our Greek Text as the original, or look beyond 
it to some preceding text, there cannot have been 

n " I must differ widely from Dr. Campbell when he refers, (as 
he does in p. 20, vol. i.) to the Bishop of Gloucester's (Dr. 
Warburton's) Doctrine of Grace, for the best refutation of the 
objections against the inspiration of the Scriptures derived from 
the want of classic purity in its language. I would on the con- 
trary direct the reader's attention to the Dissertation on the Prin- 
ciples of Human Eloquence, in which the bold paradoxes of the 
Bishop are set aside, and the argument placed on a sound and 
legitimate basis by the learned Dr. Thomas Leland, formerly a 
fellow of this (Dublin) University, 

" The Bishop, it is well known, had held that the want of purity 
in the writings of the New Testament supplies in itself a proof 
of their divine original; and had defended this position upon 
reasons nearly subversive of every just notion of the nature of 
human eloquence. Dr. Leland, on the contrary, with a due regard 
to the principles of elegance and taste, and of common sense, 
and in the direct maintenance of them all against the attacks of 
this very formidable assailant, more discreetly and successfully 
contended for the truth of this proposition, that ' whatever rude- 
ness of style may be discoverable in the writings of the New 
Testament, it can afford neither proof nor presumption that the 
authors were not divinely inspired.' See p. 97, or rather indeed 
the whole of the judicious discussion from p. 88 to p. 118 of the 
Dissertation." Magee, Disc, and Dissert* on the Script, Doctrines 
of Atonement, vol. i. p. 256, 7. 



53 

any suggestion of the very words to be employed. 
The Apostles, then, being left to depend upon their 
own faculties in the choice of their expressions, 
it is rather surprising, considering their previous 
opportunities of acquiring knowledge, that they 
should have written so well as they have done, 
than that their writings, in a critical point of 
view, should exhibit many defects. This objec- 
tion of Palseoromaica cannot certainly boast of 
novelty ; it has been urged over and over, from 
the very beginnings of Christianity, by the mem- 
bers of that sect, the Minute Philosophers— of 
which there should seem never to have been a 
more ardent disciple than the writer now under 
examination. Hear the microscopic and dispu- 
tatious Alciphron declaiming on this very topic. 
" Be the tradition ever so well attested, and the 
books ever so genuine, yet I cannot suppose them 
wrote by persons divinely inspired, so long as I 
see in them certain characters inconsistent with 
such a supposition. Surely the purest language, 
the most perfect style, the exactest method, and 
in a word all the excellencies of good writing 
might be expected in a piece composed or dic- 
tated by the Spirit of God : but books wherein 
we find the reverse of all this, it were impious 
not to reject but to attribute to the Divinity \" 
It is just and necessary, I am aware, to make a 

% Berkeley's Mm, Phil. Dial. vi. 6. 



54 

distinction here. The design of Alciphron and 
his associates was to attack directly the inspira- 
tion of the Apostles ; that of Palaeoromaica is only 
to impugn that of the writings which now pass un- 
der their names. While he agrees with the Mi- 
nute Philosophers in thinking these writings to 
be, in point of style, unworthy of, and incapable 
of having proceeded from, inspired writers, he 
yet avoids the necessity of directly questioning 
the divine commission of the Apostles. This he 
does by means of the supposition of an original, 
now lost, in which that purity of language, and 
those excellencies of writing, above spoken of, were 
actually found. As far however as his objection 
extends, as far as it proceeds to question, on the 
above grounds, the originality of the present 
Greek Text, it agrees in substance with that of 
Alciphron ; and cannot be better replied to than 
in the temperate and reasonable language of the 
great writer already quoted. — " O Alciphron, if 
I durst follow my own judgment, I should be 
apt to think there are noble beauties in the style 
of the Holy Scripture : in the narrative parts a 
strain so simple and unaffected; in the devo- 
tional and prophetic so animated and sublime ; 
and in the doctrinal parts such an air of autho- 
rity, as seems to speak their original divine. But 
I shall not enter into a dispute about taste ; 
much less set up my judgment on so nice a 
point against that of the wits, and men of genius 



55 

with which your sect abounds. And I have no 
temptation to do so, inasmuch as it seems to me 
that the Oracles of God are not less so, for being 
delivered in a plain dress rather than in the en- 
ticing words of mans wisdom y ." The final end, why 
the delivery of those oracles was entrusted to 
these despised and ignoble instruments, to men 
whose style of expression is suitable to their 
want of education, and low estimation in the 
world, is sufficiently evident to vindicate abun- 
dantly the wisdom of God in making this selec- 
tion. His purpose, apparently, was to afford no 
ground for the pretence, that the beauties of 
their style, and not the importance of the doc- 
trines they revealed, had led to the general ac- 
ceptance of the Apostolical writings ; and thus, 
had those writings been different from what they 
are, the cross of Christ might have been made 
of none effect. " I never thought nor expected," 
continues the judicious Berkeley, "that the Holy 
Scripture should shew itself divine, by a circum- 
stantial accuracy of narration, by exactness of 
method, by strictly observing the rules of rheto- 
ric, grammar, and criticism, in harmonious pe- 
riods, in elegant and choice expressions, or in 
technical definitions and partitions. These things 
would look too like a human composition. Me- 
ihinks there is in that simple, unaffected, artless, 

y Min, Phil. vi. 6. 



56 

unequal, bold, figurative style of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, a character singularly great and majestic, 
and that looks more like Divine inspiration than 
any other composition I know \" With respect, 
therefore, to any objection founded on the em- 
ployment of an incorrect and inelegant style by 
the Apostles in general, that is of a style likely 
to be used by persons of their condition and ac- 
quirements, it appears, as has been often shewn 
before, that there is very little in it. 

But the case of St. Paul, it may be said, dif- 
fers greatly from that of his brethren ; and, as 
upon this the greatest stress is laid by the au- 
thor of Palaeoromaica, it may be proper to exa- 
mine the question somewhat more at large. 
■ ' If," he says, " the style of the other books of 
the New Testament be such as might be ex- 
pected from the fishermen of the lake of Genne- 
sareth, the style of Paul ought perhaps to be 
such as we might expect from a man of talent 
and education, who was a native of the learned 
and polished city of Tarsus." (p. 145.) Again, 
" How shall we account, upon the common hy- 
pothesis that the Apostles were themselves the 
authors of our Vulgate Greek Text, how shall we 
account for the circumstance that the Greek 
style of a native of Tarsus, and of a man too of 
learning and exalted genius, should be less pure 

1 Mm, Phil. vi. 7, 



57 

than that of Peter a fisherman of Galilee ?" (p. 
152.) To determine this question let us first of 
all hear St. Paul's own account of himself. " I," 
he says, " am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, 
a city of Cilicia; a citizen of no mean city a ." So 
again b , " I verily am a man which am a Jew, 
born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, yet brought up 
in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught 
according to the perfect manner of the law of 
our fathers V What assertion can be plainer 
than that, although he was born in Cilicia, he 
was brought up and educated in Jerusalem ; and 
what ground is hereby furnished for the surmise, 
that " Paul spent his youth at Tarsus ;" and that 
" his instructions from Gamaliel were subsequent 
to the crucifixion of our Lord?" (p. 153.) At this 
time, as nearly as can be ascertained, St. Paul 
was twenty- nine or thirty years of age. Is this 
then the period at which education usually be- 

a Acts xxi. 39. b Actsxxii. 3. 

c I must think that it would be a more grammatical and 
therefore a preferable mode of dividing this verse, to place a 
greater pause after {v ry tto\h ravry, and thus to render the £oh 
lowing clause more directly explanatory of that which goes be- 
fore. Thus : fyw fxev ei[ii avqp lovoaiog, yiyevvt}fiivoQ iv Tap<rw ttjq 
KtXiKtac, avaredpafifievog $s tv ry 7ro\ec ravry rcaga tovq irodag ra/xa- 
\iij\ 7rtTTaidevfJLevoQ Kara a/cpi/3fiav tov TraTptaov vofiov. " I verily am a 
man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, but 
brought up in this city: having been taught, at the feet of 
Gamaliel, according to the perfect manner of the law of our 
fathers." 



58 

gins ? If it did so, in the case of St. Paul, we 
need hardly to seek any farther for an explana- 
tion of the defects and improprieties of his style. 
But it is manifest that St. Paul could not design 
to render any such account of himself ; for, if he 
had come to Jerusalem only at that compara- 
tively advanced period of his life, could he with 
any truth or propriety have affirmed, as he does, 
that he was " bred up {avaTeBpafifuvog) in that 
city ?" How also could such a supposition be 
reconciled with his assertion before Agrippa ? 
" My manner of life from my youth up, which 
was at the first (air apyr\q from the very beginning) 
at Jerusalem, know all the Jews ; which knew 
me from the beginning if they would testify d ," 
&c. But " his instructions from Gamaliel," we 
are required to believe, " were subsequent to 
the crucifixion of our Lord ; for had he been at 
Jerusalem during the ministry of Jesus he could 
hardly have avoided seeing him, which however 
he had never done till the time of his vision near 
Damascus." To this it is surely sufficient to re- 
ply, that there is no inconsistency in supposing 
that St. Paul might be educated at Jerusalem, 
and yet be absent from that city during the con- 
tinuance of our Lord's public ministry ; ' before 
the commencement of which his education must 
have been long completed. In the next place, 

d Acts xxvi. 4. 



59 

however, it does not appear, from St. Luke's or 
St, Paul's own account of this transaction, that 
he had never seen our Lord until his appearance 
to him on the road to Damascus. Even though 
he had previously known the person of Jesus, 
yet, having up to that very instant entertained a 
firm persuasion that he was an impostor, and had 
not risen from the dead, when he beheld him 
thus suddenly in a state of glory, he might still 
enquire, in the first moments of astonishment, 
hardly knowing what he said, " Who art thou, 
Lord ?" In the last place, it is by no means cer- 
tainly declared in the sacred history, that when 
St. Paul asked this question he had seen the 
face of the vision, or that he beheld Christ per- 
sonally, until afterwards when he obeyed the 
command, " Rise and stand upon thy feet." 
This reasoning is however purely conjectural ; 
and, as such, although different minds may arrive 
at different conclusions concerning it, can never 
weigh in opposition to a plainly recorded fact ; 
that Paul was brought up in Jerusalem, and 
spent his youth among his own nation in that 
city. Most groundless therefore is the asser- 
tion, (p. 153.) that " St. Paul had all the advan- 
tages of birth and education to become eloquent 
in Greek ; or at least to write the language with 
purity." It was hardly possible indeed that he 
could have been placed in a situation less likely 
to endow him with these qualities. The instruc- 



60 

tions of Gamaliel were principally (St. Paul af- 
firms /car* aKpi|3aav) conversant about the law and 
religion of the Jews ; the explanation of the 
Scriptures ; and the traditionary comments of 
the Rabbinical school : and the only chance, 
which the future Apostle possessed, of maintain- 
ing an acquaintance with Greek was in the way 
of ordinary conversation in a place, where, from 
the nature of things, nothing like purity of dia- 
lect could be expected to prevail. What kind 
of style he would be likely thus to acquire it is 
easy to conjecture ; we should even a priori ex- 
pect it to be such as prevails in his writings ; the 
mixed style of a city, the inhabitants of which 
were not Greeks ; abounding in foreign idioms, 
common words taken in uncommon senses, and 
forms of expression unauthorised by the usage 
of the pure native writers of Attica and Asia 
Minor. 

St. Paul, it is undeniable, quotes the Grecian 
poets; but so briefly that it cannot thence be con- 
cluded with certainty, that he possessed any ex- 
tensive acquaintance with their writings. Two of 
the passages introduced by him, those from Epi- 
menides and Menander are proverbial expressions, 
such as in most countries float on the stream of 
general conversation, and are familiarly applied, 
from hearsay, by many who have little farther 
acquaintance with the writings in which such pas- 
sages are found. The quotation from Aratus is 



61 

so very brief, that it enables us to conclude no- 
thing with certainty. It might easily be applied 
by one who had been no very diligent reader of 
poetry. In the same manner Mr. Falconer, and 
after him the author of Paleeoromaica, argues that 
St. Paul's acquaintance with the writings of the 
Greek philosophers must be presumed, because 
" he would not deserve attention if he had spoken 
of the wisdom of this world without being ac- 
quainted with its nature and teachers," (p. 154.) 
St.-<Paul, it may be replied, judged of the nature 
of the Greek philosophy by its fruits ; the lives 
of its professors, more than the writings of its 
teachers, shewed what it was capable of effect- 
ing ; and the Apostle, knowing that it could not 
preach " Christ crucified," or give to mankind 
an assurance of a life to come, understood enough 
to be justified in describing such a religious sys- 
tem, particularly when set in comparison with 
the Gospel, as false in principle, deficient in au- 
thority, and ineffectual in operation. My per- 
suasion therefore is, that St. Paul had not exten- 
sively studied either the Greek poets or the Greek 
philosophers ; neither indeed does it follow that, 
even if he had done so, he would have neces- 
sarily acquired the faculty of writing their lan- 
guage with purity and correctness : that is with 
greater purity and correctness than the Vulgate 
text of his Epistles displays. How many of our 
own countrymen have extended their reading 



62 

through the whole course of French and Italian 
literature, and even passed great part of their 
lives among the people of those nations, who 
could not write three pages in the languages 
without committing solecisms ? thus giving evi- 
dent proof, that to compose in a foreign language, 
with the ease and correctness of a native, is an 
acquisition rare indeed ; and which no compass 
of mere reading can bestow. To take an in- 
stance, quoted in Palseoromaica (p. 148.) from 
Dr. Campbell — the instance of Voltaire: " Hardly 
any foreigner,'' he says, " of the last century, 
has been more conversant with English men and 
English books than Voltaire. Yet his know- 
ledge of our language, on which, I have been 
told, he prided himself not a little, has not se- 
cured him from blundering when he attempted 
to write it." The only particular in which it can 
be said that these cases are not analogous is, 
that Voltaire was not an Englishman, whereas 
St. Paul was a native of a city in which the 
Greek tongue was very much used. But, if all 
the circumstances be fairly weighed, this will not 
appear to have been a very important advantage. 
The expressions of St. Paul himself intimate a 
very early removal to Jerusalem ; nor indeed 
would a longer continuance in Tarsus have been 
likely to communicate to him the faculty of 
writing very pure Greek. The Son of a Jew, 
of a Roman citizen, residing in a Greek city, it 



63 

seems probable that, in domestic life, even from 
his infancy, he must have been placed within 
hearing of a mixed and motley dialect, similar 
to that which Dionysius, of Halicamassus, attri- 
butes to the Romans ; 8r* aKpav jSaptapov^ s8* airrip- 

TKTfxevwg e\\a$a. Tarsus, it is true, receives a 
high character from Strabo, for the addiction of 
its inhabitants to philosophy and polite litera- 
ture ; insomuch that they are said to have sur- 
passed, in this respect, the people of Athens and 
Alexandria. Admitting that this description is 
as accurate as those of Strabo in general con- 
fessedly are, and that the study of philosophy 
prevailed to a great extent in the birth-place of 
St. Paul, it will yet remain to be considered 
whether this necessarily implies peculiar purity 
of language in the great body of the people. 
The mention of Alexandria is somewhat un- 
favourable to the Palseoromaican hypothesis, 
since, in that city, we know that, while philoso- 
phy and literature flourished, the general dialect 
of the people was vitiated by almost every de- 
parture from the standard of correctness of which 
language is capable. This was the state of 
things in Alexandria ; and the same may have 
happened, and probably did happen, in Tarsus. 
That the people of Asia Minor did not in general 
speak the Grecian language in its purity is very 
evident from the epithets /3ap€apoc, and fiaptapo- 
<j>wvoi, applied by the Greeks to all its inhabi- 



64 

tants, except the Ionians and iEolians. To the 
latter two nations the name of barbarians could 
nbt have been applied, because they spoke Greek 
with purity, and Greek alone. This was their 
native language, marking their genuine descent 
from a Pelasgic stock, and drawing a broad line 
of distinction between them and the inhabitants 
of the other provinces. The greater number, if 
not all of these, also spoke Greek ; but it was in 
conjunction with their own national languages, 
and with all those vices of inflexion and pronun- 
ciation which marked them out to the native 
Greeks as foreigners, or barbarians ; as the same 
thing was differently and more opprobriously 
expressed. We possess indeed the most posi- 
tive evidence that each separate province had its 
peculiar native language ; however that of Greece 
might be in common use among them all. " How 
hear we every man in the tongue wherein we 
were born ?" said the crowds assembled at Jeru- 
salem on the day of Pentecost, " Parthians, and 
Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Meso- 
potamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pon- 
tus and Asia (i. e. Proconsular Asia or Lydia) 
Phrygia and PamphyliaT From Acts xiv. 11. 
we learn that the inhabitants of Lycaonia, though 
they understood the Apostles, speaking Greek> 
yet cried out in their own peculiar dialect. Phi- 
lippus, the ancient historian of Caria, relates 
that the people of that province intermingled 



65 

many Greek words with their own native lan- 
guage. Strabo relates, that the Cibyratse spoke 
three languages ; one of which, the Lydian, was 
that of their own country. The Galatians, we 
learn from Pausanias and Jerome, continued to 
employ the language of the Treviri conjointly 
with that of Greece 6 . After this enumeration it 
is reasonable to conclude, that the inhabitants 
of Cilicia formed no exception to the case of the 
surrounding provinces ; but that they also had a 
peculiar language of their own. This, it is af- 
firmed by Jerome and other writers, they had ; 
and, speaking Greek in conjunction with that, 
they could not have spoken it with such purity 
as, in the opinion of the native Greeks, to ex- 
empt them from the stigma of barbarism. This 
province indeed, by geographical position the 
farthest of all removed from Europe, and placed 
in the immediate neighbourhood of Syria and 
the eastern nations, was perhaps the least likely 
of all to acquire and maintain an unobjectionable 
idiom. Even a continued residence in his na- 
tive place would therefore not have necessarily 
bestowed on St. Paul the faculty of writing bet- 
ter Greek than appears in the received text of 
his Epistles ; because, although in Tarsus lan- 
guage of a better character may have prevailed 

e On this subject see P. E. Jablonsky's Disq. de Lingua Ly- 
caonica, $§ 4, 5, 6 ; and the authorities there quoted. 

F 



66 

than was current in the province in general, 
there must have been, even there, a very wide 
departure from Attic purity ; many words adopted 
from the native Cilician tongue, and many, truly 
Greek, employed in senses unacknowledged by 
the standard writers. The example of Strabo 
himself shows, and even without that it would 
be obvious, that a native of Asia Minor might 
write very good Greek ; that is, provided he took 
pains to avoid the contagion of those improprie- 
ties which prevailed among his neighbours. But 
St. Paul was derived from a race which was not 
disposed to make such exertions ; for the Jews, 
we learn from Origen f , were not curious in Greek 
learning; so that, whatever might be the pro- 
ficiency of the inhabitants in general, the sect and 
family of -Saul of Tarsus had probably little par- 
ticipation in it. 

Nor must it be forgotten that the original rank 
and occupation of St. Paul, although superior to 
those of his brother Apostles, were not so greatly 
exalted as to give us reason to expect from him a 
display of much erudition, or of any very striking 
beauties of style. His occupation was in itself 
respectable, but the exercise of a manual craft 
. (beyond which it does not appear that he had 
any means of subsistence) could allow him few 
opportunities of exercising his knowledge of 

f See Pal. p. 15. 



67 

Greek, except in conversation with those by 
whom that language was spoken in Jerusalem ; 
and a dialect thus acquired and preserved was 
not very likely to be the same with that which 
is in use among classical authors. After he be- 
came a Christian, if it were not too late in life 
for him then to amend habits so long fixed, he 
had a weightier employment at heart, than that 
of balancing sentences and segregating pure from 
barbarous forms of speech. He seems to have 
disregarded, as a thing of little consequence, if 
he did not even studiously avoid, the imitation 
of a better model ; and to have gloried solely in 
the success of his Lord and Master's doctrine 
without being set off by the adventitious recom- 
mendation of a regular or embellished style. 
But it is urged that, after his conversion, " his 
time was spent at Tarsus, in Ephesus, and in 
Antioch ; cities which were greatly distinguished 
for Grecian literature." (p. 155.) If indeed St. 
Paul had visited these places at an earlier age, 
and in the character of a student, possessing the 
means of introduction to the refined and learned 
part of their society, their literature might pos- 
sibly have given a tinge to his ordinary mode of 
expressing himself in Greek, and have taughfr 
him to avoid the use of many words which, on 
the authority of the grammarians, we know, 
were not considered as of the purest standard. 
But when we recollect, that on his first visit to 

f2 



68 

Antioch, in company with Barnabas 8 , he must 
have been on the verge of forty years of age, 
(a time of life at which most men's style of ex- 
pression is too firmly fixed to be easily changed 
for the better) when we consider too that the year 
which he abode in that city was devoted to the 
instruction of " great multitudes," (v. 26.) and 
that, here, as in other places, the connexions of 
St. Paul were chiefly with the humbler classes h , 
who in that age had little acquaintance with 
literature, and made few pretensions to it, we 
cannot regard this as the period of the Apostle's 
life during which he was likely to surmount that 
tendency to barbarism and impurity of speech 
which was the fault of his early education. St. 
Paul, in fact, claims not for himself any supe- 
riority over his brethren as to power or propriety 
of expression. As Peter and John were dis- 
covered from their discourse to be u illiterate 

and of a low Station 1 ,'' (aypafifxaroi tcai i&wrai k ) SO 

* Acts xi. 25. 

h " The first Christians, as we formerly remarked, were, in 
general, not persons of rank to whom Greek was familiar as 
French among ourselves, but poor and uneducated persons ; as 
the Apostle himself tells the Corinthians." (1 Cor. i. 26.) 
Palceoromaica, p. 169. 

1 Acts iv. 13. 
. k " Unlearned and ignorant men," in our Established Version, 
besides being somewhat tautological, is not a very literal trans- 
lation of the words here quoted, iduarng is a private soldier, as 
distinguished from one of superior rank ; a subject as opposed 



69 

concerning himself he professes that he is icW»f€ 
TW Xo-y<£> : i. e. rude in speech ; in this respect re- 
sembling those of the humbler rank ! . We are 
therefore not yet reduced, as the author of Palae- 
oromaica too hastily, and with an air of prema- 
ture triumph, maintains, to the dilemma of sup- 
posing either that the epistles attributed to St. 
Paul were not written by him, or that the im- 
perfections of their style are attributable to an un- 
known and uninspired translator. It may suit the 

to a governor : and generally, it denotes the person who occu- 
pies any inferior station. See Schleusner Lex. N. T. in v. It 
comes, by a metonymy, to signify ignorant, because those of the 
inferior class usually are so : but this is not its original and pro- 
per meaning. " Interdum, unus e vulgo ; plebeius ; — per 
idiutTctQ saepe intelligitur Vulgus indoctum, quomodo et a Demos- 
thene accipitur." Steph. Thesaur. p. 4403 — 1641. 

'Qualesipsi (sc.Apostoli) fuere,taleetloquendi genus habuerunt. 
Non fuere autem rhetores, non poetae, non aulici, non philosophi, nee 
sophistae nee historici, nee omnino docti homines, vel ex eorum ge- 
nere quopiam qui in excolendo et expoliendo sermone versari so- 
lent. Idiotae plane sermone fuere sed non scientia, ut ipse de se fate- 
tur Paulus. Ergo stylus eorum idioticus ; ut poetarum poeticus, rhe- 
torum rhetoricus, sophistarum sophisticus, aulicorum aulicus,his- 
toriae scriptorum historicus. Patres omnes Graeci Latinique iduorag, 
aypoiKHQ, afiaOiig, aypafifiarse, sermone imperitos rudes, illiterates 
eos appellant ; qui tamen dicendo confutarint mg $Ck»oo<png rug 

pqTopag, rag foiveg eimiv IdiurtKog sermo idem cum koivq et 

vulgari. Nam tfowrai proprie dicuntur homines de plebe, indocti, 
et solo sermone utentes quo vulgus utitur in conversatione communi, 
quern que pueri a nutricibus suis imbiberunt. Salmas, de HeU 
lenist. p. 261. 



70 

purposes of a writer, who would reduce us to this 
extremity, to represent the Apostle as " an adept 
in Greek : " (p. 171.) it is, in fact, upon this one 
point that the whole force of his argument hinges. 
I do however most firmly deny the cogency of 
it ; and maintain, on the contrary, that there was 
nothing in St. Paul's birth, early condition, or 
education, nothing in his subsequent visits to 
Tarsus, Ephesus, and Antioch, in his occupation, 
or in the rank of his associates, which gives us 
reasonable grounds to expect that he would ex- 
hibit a purer, a more unembarrassed, or, upon 
the whole, a better style of writing Greek than 
the Epistles attributed to him display. Of the 
sentiments and arguments of those writings I do 
not here speak ; they were the dictates of God's 
Holy Spirit. My only concern is with the man- 
ner of expression ; and this, as exhibited in the 
text of our present Greek Testament, is of ex- 
actly such a character as, from all previous argu- 
ments, we should judge most likely to appear in 
the writings of St. Paul. Let me not from this 
be supposed to acquiesce in the justice of all the 
strictures of Palseoromaica, or to argue as if I 
thought that the written compositions of the Apos- 
tle presented only a continued series of barba- 
risms and violations of the ordinary forms of 
speech. Far from it ; there are frequent passages 
of unequalled beaitty, to which, even in a philo- 
logical and grammatical point of view, nothing 



71 

can be objected : and it is not one of the least 
difficulties attending the hypothesis of Palseoro- 
maica that it requires us to believe that these, in 
many respects inimitable, passages proceeded 
from the hand, not of St. Paul, but of a translator 
at other times so ignorant as to confuse napeKTog 
with per actus, and to suppose that 6/nupo^voi was 
the Greek for amaremur. 

The mention of these expressions however warns 
me to draw somewhat nearer to the main ques- 
tion, by entering into a distinct examination of 
these and other alleged instances, which lead, we 
are told, to a conclusion, " that the genius of 
St. Paul has had injustice done to it by an im- 
perfect translation," (p. 152.) The first exam- 
ples which occur are those of Ka>oa> m , of 6^eipofXBvoi n 9 
and of tp&eia °, which, as Gregory of Nyssa origi- 
nally remarked, are used, in the passages referred 
to, in new and unprecedented senses. To main- 
tain, as is done in Paleeoromaica, that these 
words did not proceed from St. Paul himself, but 
that the chime or echo of Latin words, somewhat 
similar in sound, suggested them, without any 
regard to their meaning, to an ignorant translator 
by whom the present Greek text of the Epistles 
was put together, this is to cut the knot in a way 
which can be satisfactory to no one capable of a 

m Phil. ii. 7. 1 Cor. i. 17, and ix. 15. M Thess, il 8. 

* Rom. ii, 8. Gal. v. 20, 



72 

moment's just reflection. If I must be persuaded 
that Ktvoi*) is nothing more than the Latin word 
exinanio, o^i^ofievoi, than amaremur in disguise, and 
zp&ua than a mistranslation of laniatio, I cannot 
help saying that it is high time to search narrowly 
in every quarter where they may possibly be 
found, for the original Scriptures of the New Tes- 
tament : for, if the writings which now pass under 
that title be thus unfaithful in such manifold in- 
stances, what assurance do we, or can we, pos- 
sess that in any other places they furnish a cor- 
rect representation of the genuine Word of God ? 
I am willing however to persuade myself that we 
are yet in no danger ot being reduced to any such 
extremity. 

The adjective kcvoc, to resume the subject under 
discussion, in its primitive sense signifies empty or 
void; as in the material universe to /cevov and to 
ir\Yipzg stand mutually opposed. Hence, in a 
literal sense, kcvow is to make or to leave void; to 
empty any recipient of that which it contains. 
In this direct sense the word is not used by St. 
Paul; but metaphorically, to intimate that the 
thing or person, which is the object of the verb, 
has abstracted from it some quality or attribute 
which belonged to it ; and which, without much 
violence to language, it might be said to contain. 
It is not perfectly true that kcvow is never used 
by profane authors in this sense; since Theo- 
phrastus, 300 years before St. Paul, by the words 



73 

§tv$pa KtKzvwfizva describes trees, which by bearing 
fruit were exhausted, or deprived of the vigour 
which was in them ; with which, he adds, they 
require avmrhripaySrivai to be replenished. C. PL ii. 1 . 
From this the transition is short and easy to the 
sense in which the same verb is used by St. Paul, 
when p he argues, that if men could become heirs 
of God " through the Law," then "faith," /cc/cevwrai, 
is left void of the efficacy and importance which 
are its inherent qualities so long as it is considered 
as the sole appointed means by which " the just 
shall live." In the same manner, he says, ku\ov 

yap fjtoi juaXXov cnroOaveiv t) to Kavy^rifia /us iva tiq K£- 

vwcrp q . " It were better for me to die than that 
any one should render this of mine an empty boast." 
There is, however, one passage r in which this 
word is used in so awful and mysterious a sense, 
that it would be miraculous indeed if our limited 
faculties could rise to a perfect apprehension of 
its meaning. " Being in the form of God, he 
thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; 
nevertheless ' tKtvwcnv eaurov — here I am obliged 
to acknowledge the difficulty of proceeding ; 
for, even while I admit, with Zanchius, that 
" magnam habet emphasin, se evacuavit omni 
gloria et eequalitate cum Patre," I am utterly 
at a loss for a word which shall describe the man- 
ner of HIS humiliation, in Whom, before He vo- 

* Rom. iv. 14. * 1 Cor. ix. 15. r Phil, ii, 7, 



74 

luntarily divested himself of it, " dwelt all the 
fulness of the Godhead bodily." Ordinary lan- 
guage sinks beneath such a subject; and it is 
surely a most unreasonable requisition to bid us 
produce, from some other writer, an instance of 
this verb used in the sense, which in this passage 
is attributed to it by the Apostle. No other 
writer ever was employed in expressing verbally 
so superhuman a conception as that of the Incar- 
nation of the Son of God ; and therefore not all 
other writers united can be expected in every 
instance to furnish corresponding forms of ex- 
pression. Considering the subject of St. Paul's 
writings, it is scarcely to be expected that he 
should at all times be able to avoid employing 
ordinary words in enlarged, and, strictly speak- 
ing, improper senses. To maintain therefore that, 
because the writings of the New Testament con- 
tain some few examples of this kind, they cannot 
be the genuine productions of the Apostles, is a 
mode of argument which neither does nor ought 
to carry any weight whatever s . 

s We learn from Cicero that, from certain hyper-critics of a 
former age, the orators of Athens themselves experienced no 
gentler treatment, on the score of employing unauthorized 
words, than the great Apostle incurs in the pages of Palasoro- 
maica. " iEschini ne Demosthenes quidem videtur Attice dicere," 
and he adds a remark which they, who employ themselves in the 
minute philosophy of cavilling and word-catching, would do well 
to inscribe on the walls of their study, " Facile est verbum aliquod 



\ 



75 

Proceeding then in our investigation, we find 
the next objection raised against the word opupo- 
Htvoi \ which is supposed to be nothing more than 
a corrupt derivative {sound not sense being re- 
garded) from the Latin amaremur, in the text from 
which it is attempted to shew that the Greek was 
translated, (p. 157). It is certainly a strong pre- 
sumption, and with every Christian will be a con- 
clusive argument, against the correctness of this 
supposition, that a Latin text, reading in confor- 
mity with it, cannot be admitted without con- 
verting the entire passage into sheer absurdity 
and unmeaning impertinence. Whether it be 
reasonable or becoming to impute this to the 
Apostle upon no better ground, than that he 
cannot possibly have used an omicron where he 
ought to have employed an iota, let others judge. 
His words, according to the Vulgate Greek, are 
these, " not seeking glory from men, neither 
from you, nor from others ; although we might 
be in authority as Apostles of Christ; but we 
were indulgent in the midst of you. As a nurse u 
cherisheth her own children, so we, being afTec- 

ardens (ut ita dicam) notare, id que, restinctis jam animorum in- 
cendiis, irridere." Orator, § viii. 

* 1 Thess. ii. 8. 

" Chandler observes that rpoQog here denotes a mother who 
nurses her own children. If vrjirioi (see Grieshach) be preferred 
in this passage to rj-moi it will by no means entail a necessity of 
interpreting, as in Palaeoromaica, (p. 157). " We became babes 
among you." For if vr\irw be genuine (as Theodoret, Origen, 



76 

tionately desirous (o/ieeoo^evoi) of you, are pleased 
to divide amongst you not only the Gospel of 
God, but even our own lives ; seeing that you 
are beloved by us." The image in this passage, 
and as it stands it is very faithfully and ten- 
derly expressive, exhibits the Apostles, as indul- 
gent nursing mothers, engaged in making provi- 
sion for the wants of a beloved family : desiring 
nothing from them in return, but surrendering all, 
even their own lives, for the welfare of their 
charge. Yet all this the author of Palaeoromaica 
seeks to destroy by his spiritless conjecture ; by 
inverting the picture he would rob it of all har- 
mony and proportion. For if, as he proposes, we 
are to take the following as the sense of the pas- 
sage, " We were as babes among you ; even as 
a nurse cherisheth her children, so ought we to 
have been beloved by you," there is nothing in the 
relative situations of the Apostles and their con- 
verts at all corresponding with this representa- 
tion. It would indeed be scarcely possible to 
describe those situations by a less suitable image. 
And if, to humour the conceit of a Latin original, 
we place a stop after amaremur, what sense can 
be deduced from the subsequent words. " We," 

(Ecumenius, and Theophylact read) the passage would be thus 
translated. " But we, O children, were among you, as, &c." 
Whitby in loc. The same parental image is again applied, v. 1 1 . 
" We exhorted and comforted, and charged every one of you, aa 
a father doth his children," 



77 



the children, " are pleased to divide among 
you," the nurses, &c. Is this then the ordinary 
relation which individuals of these classes bear to 
each other ? Is it the usual practice for the nurse 
to receive attention and sustenance from the off- 
spring? Nothing can be more opposite to the 
dictates of nature and experience than the Apos- 
tle's words, when thus interpreted, become. And 
the impropriety is rendered more perceptible 
from the force of contrast; for nothing can be 
more just or pleasing than the picture, presented 
by the Greek text, of the Apostle's parental anxiety 
for the sustenance and well being of these his 
spiritual children. 

But it is said, what can be made of 'Opzipofievoi! a 
word, as would appear, unknown to the Greek wri- 
ters ; and how can it have been used by St. Paul? 
The genuine word employed by Homer, Herodo- 
tus, and the Attic writers was 1/mpo/iEvoi, and this 
was no less certainly the word which the Apostle 
intended to use v . To account for his improper, or, 
as we may call it, provincial enunciation of the 
first syllable (o for i), we must recall to mind in 
what manner St. Paul acquired his knowledge 
of Greek. Not, as we have before seen, as the 

v 'ipupo/uu has sometimes, in both these writers, an infinitive 
mood following. Horn. II. g. 163. and Herodot. Polyhymn. 44. 
But it is also employed by them, both as to signification and re- 
gimen, in a manner exactly corresponding to St Paul's : as n 
KdKuiv t/i€iptr£ rsrwi/. Od» k. 431. and Ifieipetro x^fiaTbtv fxeyaXug • 
Thalia, 123. 



78 

native of any part of Greece Proper or of its co- 
lonies; not as a foreigner learning a language 
under proper instructors, and having his attention 
confined to the best and purest models ; but as 
the native of a province in which Greek was spoken 
although the inhabitants were not Greeks. To 
say the utmost that can be admitted in their 
favour, the Cilicians among whom he was born, 
and the Jews among whom he was educated, 
were (5aptapo(jKjjvoi and fiap$yapoy\i*)<y<Toi : and one 
of the principal faults objected to these is a vicious 
pronunciation \ We know that in every country, 
at a distance from the seat of a correct and stan- 
dard pronunciation, letters and syllables are 
interchanged with a capriciousness perfectly un- 
accountable. As dialects of this kind, in the 
ordinary course of things, seldom find their way 
into books, the fact of their prevalence in certain 
districts does not very often admit of any other 
than incidental proof; and as no writer expressly 
alludes to the case of Jerusalem, we have no 
evidence to prove that a provincial and incor- 
rect pronunciation of Greek prevailed there, ex- 
cept that such was the case with respect to 
other great cities similarly circumstanced. Thus 
in Alexandria there was a frequent substitution 

* Bap($apog St rj Qojvr) erai kcu airr)xeg to <f>9eyn<x. DlOgen, in Lucian, 
B. II. (t. 1. p. 550.) rag fiaptapug \t\idovi airtitcaZ&Vi 8ia rr\v a<rvvQe~ 
tov \a\iav. Hesych. v. xeXt^wr. 



79 



of one Greek letter for another : as of A for 
H : of O for Q ; of Al for E and H : and of 
O for E, 01 and Q. In the Septuagint we find 

KaSepiZziv for KaSapittiv y ; oikstojv for ikztwv z \ yvverm 

for yiverai a ; and an endless variety of similar 
improprieties b . Similarly Philelphus, quoted by 
Gibbon, describing the state of the Greek lan- 
guage in Constantinople, says, " The vulgar speech 
has been depraved by the people, and infected 
by the multitude of strangers who every day 
flock to the city, and mingle with its inhabitants. 
But the persons who by their birth and offices 
are attached to the Byzantine court, are those 
who maintain with the least alloy, the ancient 
standard of elegance and purity c ." Now as Je- 
rusalem was a city exposed perhaps more than 
any other, by the institutions of the prevalent 
religion, to a continual influx of strangers, who 
" mingled with the inhabitants/ ' it cannot be 
doubted but that a corresponding depravation 
of language ensued, and was very prevalent 
there. If under these circumstances a man, 
not preserved from the infection of a provincial 
and vicious pronunciation by any intercourse or 
connexion with persons of rank, (the aulici, as 

y Lev. ix. 15. * Sirach xxxvi. 17. 

* 2 Kings xii. 7. 

b See Sturz. de Dial. Alex. p. 178 — 183. 

e Decline and Fall, vol. viii. p. 157. 



80 

they are termed by Philelphus), ran into the 
error of substituting one vowel for another, and 
wrote 'O/uiEipofitvoi, when Ipapo/ievoi ought to have 
been the form, is it better than laborious trifling 
to seek, on no firmer grounds than these, sup- 
port for a rickety hypothesis, and to bring into 
play all the cumbrous machinery by which it is 
attempted to derive bfxupopLivoi from amaremur ? 

Is it necessary to proceed with other instances ? 
The next shall be that of tp&tia, on which we are 
informed, that " above all, the remark which 
Gregory makes is curious and worthy of con- 
sideration. He observes, that this (word) was 
employed by the Greeks to signify not contention 
and tearing one another d , but ivorking among wool," 
(p. 157.) With this, for the purpose of exami- 
nation, we may unite the word eK&^aXaiaxyav, used 
by St. Mark 6 , improperly in the sense of " to 
wound in the head." We have here then in- 
stances of two words which, in the writings at- 
tributed to St. Paul and St. Mark, have attached 
to them significations which they cannot pro- 
perly support. How shall we account for this ? 

d This, let it be observed, is not a correct representation of 
what is said by Gregory, who, as appears from the Latin ver- 
sion of his strictures, quoted in Palceoromaica, (p. 156.) says 
not a word about tearing one another, but represents tpiQua, in 
St. Paul's writings to mean, " studium contentionis et ulciscendi 
cupiditas." 

* Mark viii. 4. 



81 ' 

Shall we, with the author of Palseoromaica, con- 
clude that the text, in which these words are 
thus employed, has been erroneously attributed 
to the Apostles ? or shall we admit that, in these 
cases, they made use of words without knowing 
the meaning they would convey to persons per- 
fectly acquainted with the Greek language ? The 
latter supposition seems not improbable; since 
it assumes only that by those with whom the 
Apostles lived and conversed these words were 
used in the senses attributed to them in the 
Sacred Writings. The source of the confusion 
is evidently laid in erroneous etymology. First, 
with respect to cpiSaa : it is very certain that 
wherever this word is used by St. Paul, he 
takes it to signify provocation. Thus f he has the 
phrase rote & e£ eoi&iac, " but to those who pro- 
voke him ;" as by a similar construction 5 he uses 
rov e/c 7n<ze(DQ Irjors, for " him who believes in Jesus." 
Again h he affirms, that " some" *£ ep&tiag " out 
of provocation to him" (and, as he afterwards 
says, with a design to add affliction to his bonds) 
" preach Christ not of sincerity." To the mem- 
bers of the same church he enjoins, that they do 
nothing Kara epiQuav r? Kevo$o£,iav, " by way of pro- 
vocation " to others, or from a vain glorious re- 
liance on themselves : and where * epiQtia is used 

f Rom. ii. 8. g Rom. iii. 26. 

* Phil. i. 16. ii. 3. * % Cor. xii. 20.— Gal. v. 20, 

G 



82 

conjunctively with tpig, it is plain that these 
words were not designed to be synonymous ; but 
that he forbids not only all actual strife, (spic) 
but all provocations or irritations, (epAuag) from 
which it might possibly arise. Therefore in all 
these cases St. Paul used the word in question 
not as if it were derived from spiov, wool, but from 
tp&b> or ep&ilu), to provoke. This error I think it 
very probable may neither have originated with, 
nor have been confined to St. Paul ; because in 
the above etymology there is exactly such an 
appearance of correctness as would be sufficient 
to make the word in its improper sense pass cur- 
rent among foreigners. These, it is true, are 
nothing more than conjectures ; but in cases like 
the present, where better evidence is wanting, 
conjecture must be our only guide. The diffi- 
culty however, whatever it may amount to, must 
remain just what it was before ; for it is perfectly 
certain, that the solution proposed in Palseoro- 
maica cannot be correct ; that it is, in reality, no 
solution at all. If it were true that ep&ua is no- 
thing more than a mistranslation of laniatio, then 
the substitution of the latter word in the Latin 
text, which is supposed to have been the parent 
of, our Greek, ought at all events to produce a 
clear, unembarrassed and unexceptionable mean- 
ing. According to the admission of this author, 
" that must have been plain in Latin which be- 
came strange and a solecism in Greek," (p. 157.) 



83 

Let us then try his present restitution of the 
original by this test : rote & e£ tp&uag, according 
to his rule, must have been derived from " lis au- 
tem qui sunt e laniatione ;" which, if it have any 
meaning at all, must signify, " But to those 
who cut and maim?' Let any one look at the 
context and determine whether this is " plain 
in Latin," or whether any conjecture so pal- 
pably bearing with it its own refutation was ever 
brought to the notice of the world. I do not go 
through all the other passages, (although an ap- 
plication of the same test leads in them to a 
similar result) because it is painful and revolt- 
ing to our feelings of due respect for the word 
of God, to allude, even hypothetically, to the vio- 
lations of sense and propriety which the Palaeo- 
romaican hypothesis introduces into the language 
of the Apostles. Let the odium rest on him 
whose visionary system, in its application, gives 
rise to such a profanation of things sacred. 

In the case of the next word, e/c^aXaiwo-av, his 
conjecture is so far more reasonable than the 
foregoing, that the substitution of expulerunt does 
not deprive the passage of all meaning. But 
when I am required to believe that this inter- 
change of EKE<j>a\aioj<jav with expulerunt, was occa- 
sioned solely by similarity of sound, it is impossi- 
ble not to remark that he must have quick ears 
by whom this similarity is perceptible. It must, 
to all appearance, have cost the supposed trans- 

g 2 



84 

lator, and, if he will speak frankly, the author 
of Palaeoromaica himself, infinitely more trouble 
to detect the resemblance than to translate £*«- 
tydXaiuoav, correctly, twenty times over. Com- 
menting On the passage, KaKuvov EK£<f>a\ai(t)(rav k , 

and adventuring upon criticism, which is not his 
province, he observes, " Now certainly we do 
not hear that the former servant had l , as the 
Greek seems to imply, been wounded in the head/ 
(p. 99.) But I must take leave to tell him, that 
the Greek implies no such thing ; and if he will 
ever condescend to read two verses consecu- 
tively, he will find in that which follows that 
yet a third servant was sent ; KaKuvov amKruvav, 
from which no one has ever yet inferred that 
either of the preceding messengers was also put 
to death. Omitting this point, however, to con- 
sider the word /cc^aXatow, we must admit that its 
real meaning, in other Greek authors, is not to 
wound in the head, but to collect under one head. 
And since the latter is evidently not the sense in 
which it can be taken in this passage, we are 
under the necessity of supposing that the Evan- 
gelist has used the word in a sense which no 
native Greek would have recognised. But I re- 
cal to mind, that St. Mark was not a Greek by 
birth ; that among his countrymen many such 
words must have crept into ordinary use ; that 

k Mark xii. 4. J Mark xii. 3. 



85 

his writings bear evident marks of being com- 
posed in the style prevalent in conversation ra- 
ther than in books ; and that, among persons in 
his class of life, words would be taken in senses 
not only different from those acknowledged by 
the Greeks themselves, but deviating even from 
the usage of the better instructed ranks of his 
own countrymen m . 

tt " Aliis uti solet vulgus aliis honestioris ordinis viri, aliis 
etiam ordo doctiorum— certum est Romoe aliter vulgum locu- 
tum fuisse, aliter scripsisse disertos." Salm. de Hell. p. 96. Of 
the accuracy of this last remark there can be no doubt if we 
write Hierosolymis instead of Romce ; and, if it be equally cer- 
tain that the Apostles in writing sided with the vulgar rather 
than with the learned, there appears to be no other account 
necessary of their employment of some words in unusual and 
improper significations. That they did employ many such 
words is evident from the collection made by the same great 
critic—" BvxapiT£iv pro gratias agere cltthciZuv auctor et exacte 
eXkriviZwv nunquam dixisset, sed x a pw etdevat. Phrynicus. airoraG- 
fftcQai nvi pro valedicere barbarum est. Idem Phrynicus an-o- 
raffaojxai gqi iK<pv\ov navv xPW yap Xeytiv a(nraZ t Qyi,ai <xe^—^crpi]viav 
pro rpv<pav et Kara<=rpriviav in deliciis et luxu vivere plebeium voca- 

bulum quo et Paulus usus est. tbt^ tx9 r i aavT0 ot rr\v vtaq Kiofit^ScoQ 
voiijTaiy <f> 8K av fi7] fiavstQ tiq xprjaaiTo, irapov Xcyav rpv<pq,v? De 
Hellen. p. 99. In the word zvoxnpuv we are a ^ so furnished, on 
the same authority, with an instance of the manner in which 
words were gradually deflected from their original and native 
significations. (t Antiquiores et meliores Graeci evaxnuova de 
honesto ac moderato viro dixere — melius apud Matthasum pro 
divite accipietur. Nam et Marcus in eadem historia narranda 
irkmnov (3a\EVTT)v appellavit ; ergo evcrxrtfitov idem quod irXsmoQ; 
Cujus notionis hsec ratio est. <rxif*a in idiotismo vestem denotat. 



86 

Under these circumstances, obeying, I hope, 
the Apostle's precept to judge " without par- 
tiality and without hypocrisy," I profess my 
inability to discover any ground for wondering 
at such an occurrence ; for reflecting in conse- 
quence upon the Evangelist's authority ; or for 
questioning the authenticity of the Greek text 
in which this appearance presents itself. In 
English we could not be greatly surprised at a 
foreigner who should confuse in like manner two 
of the meanings of the word head ; as it signifies 
the seat of the brain, or the section of a discourse. 
And it must be added that if, in despite of this 
error, the foreigner's general accuracy were un- 
impeachable, if his evidence were confirmed by 
every internal as well as external assurance, by 
its consistency with itself, and by its agreement 
with the relations of others, no candid reasoner 
would lay the slightest stress on so trivial a pe- 
culiarity. Unhappily the writers of the Gospel 
have not always candid reasoners to deal with n . 

Unde et schema Plauto pro veste, et servilis schema* Hinc 
tvoxiinuv pro bene vestito et cui bonum schema. Tales, ut pluri- 
mum, dittores, qui ex veste bona dignoscuntur. Sed et tv7rarpidat et 
xiobiles plerumque etiam splendidius ornati. Qua ratione et 
ivaxnpuv nobilem potest denotare," p. 100. 

n Although my professed and firm persuasion is, that in the 
Greek MSS. and the Writings of the Greek Fathers collectively 
the entire writings of the Apostles are preserved, and that con- 
sequently if tKt<pa\aib)(Tav be found in all of these, it must be the 
genuine reading, I should feel considerably less difficulty in 



87 

We are next led to the consideration of two 
words, not indeed precisely similarly situated 
with the last, because it is possible to produce 
authority sufficient to warrant the use of them ; 
at all events to shew that their appearance in 
our Vulgate Greek can furnish no presumption 
against that text being the original composition 
of the Apostles. These are Trep-rrepevoiuai °, and 
fitTzupiCofxai p . With respect to the first of these 
words, the decision of Schleusner that its deri- 
vation is from the Latin perperam, and that this 
sense best consorts with the scope of the passage, 
seems not to be formed with his usual j udgment. 
It is not necessary however to interrupt the en- 
quiry by any discussion of this point, since even 

even resorting to conjecture in this single instance, and thus ad- 
mitting it to form an exception to the correctness of my general 
position, than in persuading myself that the solution proposed 
in Palaeoromaica can possibly be correct. It would be prefer- 
able, failing every other resource, to suppose that St. Mark 
Wrote kqkuvov eZeQavXiaav Kai airereikav yTifKo/xsvov. And him they 
set at nought, and sent away dishonoured ; and that eZe<j>av\i<Tav, 
through an accidental transposition of some of the letters, gave 
birth to sKe<pa\ai(»aav. \i6oto\naavTeQ is omitted by the best MSS. 
and was probably at first a marginal annotation from the parallel 
passage in St. Matthew. Without the authority of MSS. or of 
some other description, I admit, no stress can be laid on this 
conjecture ; nor does it appear to be necessary ; since the solu- 
tion in the text seems reasonable and sufficient. This imaginary 
reading is noticed only as being preferable to the random guess 
in Palaeoromaica. 

° 1 Cor. xiii. 4. p Luke xii. 29. 



88 

its decision in favour of Schleusner would add 
no force to the argument of Palaeoromaica. The 
word may have been formed from the Latin, and 
yet it will not follow that the text of the Epistle 
to the Corinthians is nothing but a translation 
from the Latin. This will not follow, because 
the same word, bearing a sense perfectly suitable 
to that which the scope of St. Paul's observa- 
tions requires, is so used by other writers, ante- 
rior and subsequent, as to render it perfectly 
possible that it may have been employed by the 
Apostle himself. I do not profess to have searched 
for other authorities than those which are fur- 
nished by Schleusner and Parkhurst ; but from 
these it appears that Trtpirzozvofxai, or its compound, 
was known to M. Antoninus, Arrian, and Cicero. 
In the latter writer Ernesti explains it to signify 
" reduci Pompeio, novo auditori, me omnimodo 
jactavi et venditavi, nullo genere prsecipuo orna- 
mentorum neglecto, quae nunquam ita se mihi 
obtulerunt ac nunc;" and Suicer, perhaps more 
appropriately, " Me ostentavi, et quasi juveniliter 
jactavi; omnibus adhibitis fucis et ornamentis 
orationi mese, quasi exultavi et placere illi stu- 
dui." Thus, in conformity with the remark of 
Casaubon (cited by Parkhurst) he made too great 
an ostentation of those excellencies he really had ; and 
it appears hardly possible for St. Paul to have 
found a word more appropriate to his design of 
forbidding any boastful exhibition of the faculties 



89 

out of pride of heart or from motives of self- 
interest. We are under no necessity of suppo- 
sing that St. Paul had read the works of Cicero 
and copied from him ; for, even admitting that 
the word was newly formed when the great 
orator made use of it, there was sufficient time 
for it to obtain general circulation between the date 
of the Epistle to Atticus, and that of the First 
to the Corinthians. But it is far more probable 
that the word was already in common use ; since, 
if Cicero, writing familiarly to his most intimate 
friend, had recourse to a Greek word to express 
that which no word in their own language was 
capable of expressing, it seems inconsistent with 
reason to suppose that he would employ a word 
which was not in common usage, and perfectly 
intelligible to his correspondent. That it did 
preserve its currency is manifest from its appear- 
ance in the writings of Arrian and Antoninus ; 
neither of whom can be suspected of having 
borrowed it from St. Paul q . 

The same remarks are in a great measure ap- 
plicable to the verb jutrewoifrjuat, which in St. 
Luke's Greek text signifies " to be in a state of 
anxiety" or " of doubtful mind ;" The adjective 

i Speaking of the interpretation of TrepTrepevofiai here adopted, 
Schleusner objects " quam explicationem vero vox sequens 
QvaiaTcti admittere mihi non videtur." But the distinction meant 
by St. Paul seems to have been, that TrepTrep svofiai should denote 
the outward display ', and (pvaioofxai the inward feeling of too great 
self-complacency ; both of which charity avoids. 



90 
/xerewpoc in a sense precisely similar is employed 

by JosephllS r , tvQa &e juertwpoe y\ re Supia iraaa Kat to 
JsdaiKov r)v, tK^syojuievov to rfAoc ts SpafxaTOQ. " Then 

was all Syria and Judea in a state of anxious doubt, 
awaiting the catastrophe of this drama." And 
again referring to Cicero, Non ero tarn ixeTtwpog 
quam in Apuleio fui, (ad Att. v. 11.) His libris 
scrip tis me ad awTa^ug dedi; quae quidem vereor 
ne miniata caerula tua pluribus locis notandae 
sint : ita sum ^TEuypog et magnis cogitationibus 
impeditus. (xv. 14.) And again Bruto, Cumssepe 
injecissem de opowXoia non perinde atque ego 
putaram arripere visus est. Existimabam juietelj- 
poTEpov esse, et hercule erat ; et maxime de ludis, 
(xvi. 5.) These passages leave no doubt as to the 
meaning of the adjective ; that of the verb seems 
to be no less satisfactorily ascertained by the 
following extract which has been pointed out to 
me by a learned friend. " Expensis variis mul- 
torum, quos inter prseclaram, in illustrando hoc 
loco, operam posuit Dt^esigius, cum in peculiari 
Commentatione Lips. a. 1734 edita, turn in Com- 
mentario de Verb. Med. N. F. I. 87, sententiis, 
non tamen ita diversis ut non conciliari possint, 
unice veram esse fateor earn qua verbo ^Te^piie^Oai 
significatio ea tribuitur ut denotet fluctuanti, jactato, 
inquieto, verbo, sollicito anhno esse. MeT£h)pi£,e<rOai 
in altumferri, quo sensu apud eundem (Philonem) 
dicitur, lib. 2. Vit. Mos. p. 661. E, de fluctibus 

, r Bell, Jud, I. }. 3. 



91 

marinis ; mXayri apOsvra, Km iroTafxoi METEQPI20EN- 

TES : maria tumentia elati que fluvii. — Sic de Mo- 
narch, p. 817. A yvw^li §e aeavrov, Kai fxr) (jv/LnrepKpeps 
tcliq virep Svva/Liiv opfiaiq Kai ZTTiZviuiaiQ, jurjcE <r£ rwv ave- 
(j>iKTWv ££>o>c aipero) Kai METEQPIZETQ. t(jjv yap sdevog 

ajjLoip-nauq. Nosce teipsum, nee sinas te cupidine 
rerum quibus impar sis abripi, nee te eorum, ad quae 
pervenire negatum sit, amor efferat et suspendat : 
Potieris enim omnibus ad qua pervenire datum sit. 
Observetur in his verba /xerewpi&o-Seu et <*v}nrzpi$s.- 
pzcr%i promiscue poni ; ut vere cum eruditis asse- 
rere videamur, verbum hoc, petita de navibus 
quse ventis et fluctibus in alto jactantur meta- 
phor a, denotare anxium suspensum sollicitum esse. 
Igitur Nolite ait Servator, sollicitudinibus curls 
quejaetari; Nolite (ut Reinesii Ep. ad Daum. p. 
226. verbis utar) animo vagari, pnriZecOai Kai £>£ju€s<t- 
%i, rebus terrenis animum intentum habere modo hoc 
modo illud expetentem : cui contrarium est in Deo 
defixas cogitationes habere, de que ejus cur a et pro- 
videntia securum esse, quod fieri nequit, nisi in 
potestate habeantur cupiditates, et in promptu 
sit illud, naturam paucis contentam esse. Quid 
quseris? exprimitur id quod Horatius, Epist. I. 
18. 110, sentit et precatur Ne Fluitem dubice spe 
pendulus horee." Chr. Frid. Loesneri Observatt. 
ad Novum Testam : e Philone Alexandrino Lips. 
1777. p. 115—117. 

But it is time that our attention should be 
turned to a class of words, on the occurrence of 



92 

which in the writings of the Apostles the author 
of Palseoromaica principally rests his hypothesis, 
That our present Greek Vulgate New Testament 
is derived, by translation, from the Latin. These 
are " Latin words in Greek characters, or slightly 
changed; and retaining their primitive significa- 
tion," (p. 21 8.) This objection is not now raised for 
the first time : Evanson in his Dissonance declares 
that " this single circumstance'' — the mixture of 
Latin words — induces him " to suspect every 
passage and writing wherein it is found to be 
either an interpolation, or fiction of no earlier 
date than the middle of the second century 5 ." 
To do justice to the author of Palseoromaica he 
has no design of promulgating any such princi- 
ples as lead directly to an agreement with Evan- 
son, or to the subversion of the Christian faith. 
He admits that the Apostles did compose in some 
language, he knows not and cares not what it 
was, Four Gospels, and as many Epistles as 
are now canonically received. He is only con- 
cerned to prove that our present Greek Vulgate 
is a translation from the Latin, and not the ori- 
ginal text of the Sacred Writers themselves. 
But since the supposed Latin original of our 
present Greek text hath utterly perished, whe- 
ther that were itself the original, or only a trans- 
lation, ascending through an indefinite number 

* PaL p. 4, 



93 

of translations to the primary text of all, the 
genuine writings of the Apostles no longer exist. 
We are therefore precluded from any appeal to 
the original document for the purpose of ascer- 
taining its conformity with the only substitute 
for it which remains in our possession. When 
with this we connect the other part of the hypo- 
thesis, namely that the derived text, which we 
are thus unable to verify, is of uncertain date, 
and the production of persons unknown, whose 
skill and authority are alike questionable, it re- 
quires more ingenuity than I possess to shew 
that we are not coming to the same point with 
Evanson himself. 

With respect to the words in question, namely 
Latin words in Greek characters, if it be asked 
whence did they originate, the reply is in the 
prevalence of Roman influence and Roman cus- 
toms in Judea in the age of the Apostles. The 
mere occurrence of some such words, let it be 
observed, is not the ground of suspicion ; since 
it is admitted " that Roman names and titles 
should be found in the New Testament was to 
be expected," (p. 220.) But it is said " the 
greater number of these words might have been 
expressed in Greek ; and it seems inconceivable, 

* To the author of Palaeoromaica a disciple of Evanson might 
Say in the words of Cyrus, ov 8e eig fitv ro avro i\\iw oirevdeic, rro\- 
X«c Se rivag s\iy/tt©i/£ av(o kcii Kara) TrXaVtoiiivog fioXtg a<j>iicvu otth t)(ieig 
naXai t/KOfiiv. 



94 

or at least difficult to conceive, that in the time of 
the Apostles the language of the ruling nation 
could have had so much influence in corrupting 
the Greek tongue." (ib.) The whole question 
therefore is reduced to one of time, and one of 
degree ; whether it be credible that, in the age of 
the Apostles, the Greek tongue was already so much 
corrupted by an admixture of Latinisms as the 
frequent occurrence of them in the New Testa- 
ment would seem to imply. These questions 
necessarily direct us to a short review of the 
state of Judea at this period of its history. 

From the date of the victory of Acilius over 
Antiochus, king of Syria, (B. C. 190,) which led 
to the expedition of Lucius Scipio into Asia in 
the following year 11 , to the victory at Sardes, and 
to the surrender of all the provinces on this side 
of Taurus to the Romans x , the influence of the 
republic became very considerable in the regions 
which lie to the westward of the river Halys, 
and the promontory of Sarpedon : and must 
have laid the foundation of many changes in the 
manners and language of that quarter of the 
world. Such an extension of dominion could 
not take place without occasioning the introduc- 

" Liv. xxx vii. 7. 

* " Europa abstinete, Asia que omni, quae cis Taurum mon- 
tem est, discedite," are the words which Livy puts into the 
mouth of Africanus, who, as the lieutenant of his brother,, un- 
dertook to reply to the proposals of Antiochus, 



95 

tion of great numbers of Romans in civil and 
military capacities ; and the consequent preva- 
lence of their language even beyond the limit of 
their own dominion. Their policy, which or- 
dained that all the proceedings of government 
should be carried on in the Latin language, 
must indeed have rendered an acquaintance with 
it very general in every country which was theirs 
by right of conquest. Nor could the influence 
of such a state of things be confined to the ac- 
tual territories of Rome ; but must to a certain 
extent have affected the neighbouring provinces 
and kingdoms of Syria ; each of which, as the 
tide of conquest rolled onward under the succes- 
sors of Scipio, must have contemplated its pro- 
gress in trembling expectation of becoming the 
next victim of republican ambition. We have, 
however, no evidence to establish the certainty 
of any direct communication of importance be- 
tween the Romans and the Jews, until about 
thirty years after the defeat of Antiochus, and 
the conquest of his dominions, when the cele- 
brated alliance was formed between Judas Mac- 
cabeus and the Roman senate, (B. C. 161.) 

From this period the connexion with Rome 
was uniformly maintained, and an acquaintance 
with the discipline, the manners, and the lan- 
guage of the Latins became, in the natural course 
of things, every day more prevalent in Judea. 
At length, in the age of Pompey, sixty years 



iB^B^JSSg* 



96 



before the birth of Christ, and at least a hun-* 
dred before the earliest of the Gospels was writ- 
ten, happened the final subjugation of the Jews 
by the Roman arms, the taking of Jerusalem by- 
storm, and the reduction of Judea to the form 
and condition of a Roman province y . During 
the greater part then of the century which pre- 
ceded the birth of Christ, Roman soldiers occu- 
pied the provinces, and garrisoned the capital 
and other towns of the Holy Land ; all cases, 
civil and criminal, of any difficulty and import- 
ance, were decided by a Roman governor before 
a Roman tribunal ; the proceedings of which 
were regulated by the laws of Roman jurispru- 
dence, and carried on in the Roman language ; 
while the collection of the revenue was superin- 
tended by officers acting under authority from 
Rome. It is impossible to conceive that any 
country could be thus circumstanced, during so 
long a course of years, without becoming very 
familiar with the language of its conquerors, and 
adopting many of their terms and idioms into its 
ordinary discourse. Even the Attic dialect, in 
the metropolis of its native province, was ex- 
posed to changes and corruptions, arising from 
sources very similar to those which, in Judea, 
gradually altered the very genius of the Greek 
language. " The causes of the changes in the 

I Pint, in Pomp. 



97 

Attic language are not so secret and abstruse but 
that a man of less sagacity than Mr. B(oyle) 
might have found them out ; for, if we consider 
the great conflux of strangers to that city, the 
vast number of slaves from all nations, and of 
foreigners that settled there, the frequent wars 
twice they had abroad, and the hired troops that 
they often maintained at home — we shall rather 
admire that the alterations in their dialect were 
so few, than affirm with Mr. B. that there were 
none at all*." 

In the same manner the constant succession of 
" strangers from Rome" arriving in Jerusalem, 
the number of slaves, familiar with the language 
and customs of the imperial city, who constantly 
attended the civil and military functionaries of 
the province, the presence of " the Italian band" 
as a body guard to the praetor, and the enlist- 
ment of many Jews in the Roman legions, must, 
in the course of a hundred years, have made in- 
numerable words connected with the arts, the 
arms, the discipline, the finances, the dress, and 
the amusements, of the governing nation, no less 
familiar in Jerusalem than thev were in Rome. 
This formation of a mixed language is the un- 
avoidable effect of a constant admixture of the 
people of any two nations. The purity of the 
Hebrew language, it is plain, suffered greatly 

z Dissert, on Phalar. p. 402.— 290. Lend. ed. 1817. 

H 



98 

from the preponderance of the Roman ; and 
many Latin words, which the common engage- 
ments of life required to be in frequent use, are 
found expressed in Hebrew characters also ; 
• ' slightly changed and retaining their primitive 
signification." The usual good sense and un- 
rivalled penetration of Bentley, are displayed 
in his remark, that " the long continuance both 
of Hebrew and Syriac, was because the na- 
tions continued unmLved, and separate from 
strangers : and the preservation of the Greek 
language, though not in the same degree of pu- 
rity and duration with the two other, is wholly 
owing to the same cause : for, till the time of 
Alexander, the wars and the business of the 
Greeks were, for the most part, among one ano- 
ther, and not with foreign nations ; so that, 
though the particular dialects were perpetually 
changed and diversified, by their mutual con- 
quests and commerce, yet the same language 
for the main continued still. But when the Ro- 
man government was established among them, 
immediately the Latin names of offices, and terms of 
law, &c. over-ran the old Greek language, so 
that we have dictionaries of barbarous words of 
Greece almost as voluminous as those of the 
true ones a ." It is indeed impossible, and for- 
bidden by the laws of nature itself, that any two 

i 

* Dissert, on Phalar, p, 405.— 292. 



99 

dialects should be in a state of perpetual colli- 
sion without each acquiring some of the other's 
peculiar terms. The extent, to which this ope- 
ration of the Latin tongue on the genius of the 
Greek was ultimately carried, is manifested by 
the circumstance which Dr. Bentley mentions, 
that " the lexicons of barbarous Greek words 
became almost as voluminous as those of the true 
ones." Is it not reasonable then to conclude 
that, as far as the decay of the Greek purity 
was owing to the civil and military preponder- 
ance of the Romans, the effect began to be visi- 
ble as soon as the cause began to operate ? and 
when that cause had been exerting itself in Ju- 
dea during an entire century, traces of the ad- 
mixture of Latinisms, both with the Greek and 
Hebrew, could not but be growing very manifest. 
To refer again to the great authority of which 
so much use has been made, " when the Roman 
government," observes Dr. Bentley, " was esta- 
blished among them, immediately the Latin names 
of offices and terms of law, $c. over-ran the 
Greek language." But what does this fyc. mean ? 
There were, we know, in the reign of Charles the 
First, certain persons who very reasonably ob- 
jected to subscribe to an oath in which this ab- 
breviation was employed ; because it was impos- 
sible for them to tell what was meant to be 
comprehended under it. But Dr. Bentley 's #c. 
is hardly open to any such objection. I trust to 

h 2 



100 

have even the author of Paleeoromaica so far on 
my side as to admit, that among the et cceteras 
here alluded to, must be reckoned the Roman 
names of money, weights and measures, clothing, 
public buildings, and, in general, of all military, 
judicial and financial offices and employments. If 
this evolution of the Master's abbreviation be 
admitted as correct, and the above specification 
of Latin terms, which probably would prevail in 
Greek, be compared with the class (No. I.) of 
" Latin words in Greek characters," (p. 218.) 
which actually are employed in the Vulgate 
Greek Text, it will go far to account for the 
frequent use of them in the New Testament ; and, 
I hope to allay any unpleasant apprehensions 
which may have been excited, in the minds of 
unlearned readers," by the too confident asser- 
tions of the paradoxical writer to whom I am 
replying. 

The phenomena noticed in the Gospels are 
neither peculiar to the Greek of the Evangelists, 
nor to the Greek language in general. Every 
language, even in its purest state, is gradually 
interweaving a thread of foreign idioms b ; and 

b " Nulla unquam dialectus fuit quae suis solis ac nativis vo- 
cabulis res omnes expresserit, nisi si forte in ea gente ac populo 
qui intra insulam aliquam conclusus cum nemine commercium 
agitavit. Alioquin omnes florentissimae linguae et gentium 
praepotentium, quae latissimas tenuere ditiones, multis que im- 
peraruQt populis iTtpoyXuxraoigt et cum multis rem habuere com- 



101 

of the manner in which particular terms are sug- 
gested, as well as of the process which leads to 
their adoption, a very clear illustration is pre- 
sented in the instance of the factitious Latin 
word cataplus. 

This word, it is well known, was used as the 
name of that Alexandrian fleet which annually 
imported provisions and other merchandize of 
Egypt into Italy . But according to Casaubon, 
" KarairXovg proprie non est classis ipsa sed classis 
appulsus ad portum, ac prsesertim mercatorum. 
— Sed cum Puteolis et Neapoli, ubi maximus lin- 
guae Grsecae fuit usus, plurimum in ore hominum 
esset ea vox, velut cum dicerent Expectari Karair- 
Xow classis Alexandrinae, et Tardare KarairXow, 
alia que id genus, tandem csepit cataplus pro 
ipsa classe accipi. Simile postea accidit in voce 
€^i€oXt?, quse, cum significet <j>oprov navis et quic- 
quid mercium illi imponitur, postea de hac ipsa 
classe usurpata est a LatinisV If then from 
the constant habit of hearing KarairXovg and c/i- 
€oX?j spoken of, the Romans adopted these 
words into their language, writing them only in 
Latin characters, can it be deemed surprising if 

merciorum gratia, plurimum de alieno mutuatae sunt. Victores 
quinetiam, victi que, ssepe in unum coalescentes, miscuere lin- 
guas, aut altera alteram perdidit et cum sua confudit." Salm. de 
Hellenist, p. 91. 

c " Cum tibi Niliacus portet crystalla cataplus 
Accipe de circo pocula flaminio." Martial. 

d Causaub. Sueton, Aug, p. 97. ed. 1611. 



10? 

vice versa the same thing were done by the 
Greeks, in many instances, and from a similar 
cause ? Were not the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
in as constant habit of hearing Assarium and De- 
narius, and Centurio, and Census used, with Fo- 
rum, and Sudarium, and most of the other words 
enumerated, (pp. 218 — 20.) as the people of 
Naples and Puteoli were of hearing of the Karatr- 
Xovg and the t^oXn of the Alexandrian fleet ? 
Can it be supposed that those words, necessarily 
of daily occurrence in Judea, had not become 
familiar there when the Roman government had 
been above a hundred years established e ? 
Athenseus, who lived at a comparatively early 
period after the publication of the evangelical 
writings, bears testimony, in many passages, 
to the extent which flie depravation of Greek, 
by the admixture of foreign words in Greek 
characters, had reached in his time, and to the 
systematic manner in which it was carried on. 
Cynulcus, being reproved for the barbarism of 
calling for a glass of Si/co/cra, (which is the Latin 
decocta, in Greek characters,) replies in defence 



• «« 



Ex quo Graecismus in Syria per Macedones propagatus 
est, Judaei, qui a teneris utramque linguam addiscebant, verna- 
culam Syriacam, et Graecam, alteram altera corrumpebant, et 
phrases Syriacas verbis Graecis in loquendo enuntiabant, et 
verba Grasca ad formam Hebraicorum plerumque fingebant. 
Quod et hodie facere Judaeos Germanos compertum est. — Sub 
Romania caepere esse rptyXwrroi, et Romanam duabus illis prae- 
dictis adjunxere linguam ; sic nullam puram usurpabant." Sal- 
ma$* 1* c. 



103 



of himself, " Ev Po^it? ry fiaatXtvov&rj Siarpi€<a>v 
ra vvv, (u X^c, eiriy^wpK^ /a^pij/iai Mara rr\v avvr\- 
Seiav (j>u)VQ' km yap irapa roig apyaioiq iroir]TaiQ, Kai 
ovyypatytvai toiq acjtoSpa eXXrjvi^ovffiv, es'iv tvpeiv Kai 

Uepauca ovopara KUiitva, wg tovq irapaaayyaq, 

f » 
Kai tovq ayyapovQ 9 Kai ti\v oyoivov rj tov ayoivov . 

We see from this on what trivial occasions, and 
with how much caprice, the license of clothing 
Latin words in a Greek dress was resorted to. 
Decocta might certainly have been expressed in 
legitimate Greek, as well as spiculator, custodia, 
and the rest ; but the defence set up by Cynul- 
cus shews how forcible is the effect of habit in 
leading to the adoption of foreign terms of fre- 
quent occurrence, even when equivalent terms 
are supplied by the language into which the 
factitious words are introduced. If we examine 
the list of Roman words in the New Testament, 
we shall find that the employment of all, or of 
nearly all, must have been dictated by conveni- 
ence if not by necessity, under the existing cir- 
cumstances of the two nations which at this 
time occupied Judea. To take the first exam- 
ple in the list, that of money ; admitting that the 
accurate proportion of value was adjusted be- 
tween the assarium and denarius, and the corres- 
ponding Jewish or Grecian coins, was the ba- 
lance of exchange to be computed and settled 

[ Lib. iu.pl 121. 



104 

in every instance of the daily and hourly bar- 
gaining, the petty payments and receipts, by 
which the intercourse of cities is carried on? 
In the great operations of commerce between 
nations, each of which adheres to its own de- 
nomination of currency, this process may be 
submitted to ; since none but traders and mer- 
chants, inured to habits of calculation, are re- 
quired to engage in these complicated adjust- 
ments of value. But is it credible that, during 
an entire century, after the time when Judea be- 
came a Roman province, its inhabitants should 
have submitted to this perplexing process every 
time that a Roman soldier desired to spend his 
daily pay, or a Jew was called to pay the tri- 
bute-money to the collectors ? Is it not rather 
certain that, for the mutual accommodation of 
either party, the names of the Roman coins 
would speedily be naturalised in the Greek lan- 
guage, and be continually mentioned in ordinary 
discourse ? And if, as appearances intimate, the 
Apostles wrote Greek just as they heard it 
spoken around them, can it be deemed marvel- 
lous that St. Matthew should term the tribute- 
money Arjvapiog, and St. Luke affirm that five 
sparrows are sold for two kaaapia ? Considera- 
tions of the same kind will explain the introduc- 
tion of many other terms. As the Roman in- 
habitants of Puteoli, hearing the KaraitXovq of the 
Alexandrian fleet incessantly alluded to, adopted 



105 

that word into their language, so the dwellers in 
Jerusalem could scarcely fail of enriching their 
vocabulary with those terms which were daily 
and hourly uttered familiarly in their streets. 
Such are the names of centurio, census, colonia, 
forum, legio, macellum, prcetorium, sudarium, fia- 
gellum, and the like. 

But it is said, that most of these words might 
have been expressed by equivalent terms purely 
Greek. I answer, by philosophers and gram- 
marians, if they had the direction of such 
matters, they might have been ; so might tea- 
TaTrXovc have been expressed by a good Latin 
word, and decocta by an unobjectionable Greek: 
but we know that they were not. It is be- 
sides not altogether true that, in all cases, a 
translation, even into words synonymous with 
the original, conveys the designed idea as de- 
finitely and precisely as the original itself does. 
For instance, although it be perfectly certain 
that fias-iS is a correct translation of fiagellum, 
and a writer studious of purity wouid have used 
the former word, the Evangelists, by retaining 
the original name of the instrument of torture 
by which our Saviour suffered, took the most 
certain method of representing his sufferings in 
the most lively manner, to those among whom, 
the " horribile fiagellum" was regarded as an 
instrument notoriously productive of the ex- 
tremity of corporal suffering. Names are so 



106 

closely connected with things, that unless in 
many cases the identical letters and syllables be 
retained, the corresponding image is very faintly, 
or not at all, excited in the mind. Indepen- 
dently of this, although a few may be found, in 
every community, anxious to maintain the purity 
of their native language, and to consult propriety 
of translation, the indolence of the multitude is 
little disposed to submit to the pains which such 
a discrimination requires. They are rather willing 
to sacrifice purity to convenience, and to adopt, 
with the least practicable variation, the foreign 
terms with which use has made them familiar. 

At the period under consideration, there had 
not been wanting many previous symptoms of 
the great departure from purity, which had been 
for some time extending itself over the Grecian 
language; and which, as far as it consisted in 
the adoption of Latin terms, was of course prin- 
cipally attributable to the extending influence of 
Rome. Accordingly it displays itself chiefly in 
the writings of authors who made that city their 
residence, or had a strong connexion with it. 
Polybius, the friend and associate of Scipio, 
although he wrote in Greek, displays an idiom g 

* I cannot but express my regret that the author of Palaeoro- 
maica, from whom, as a professed believer in the personality of 
the Holy Spirit, a greater degree of reverence might have been 
expected, should have noticed the style of Polybius only to 
quote a most unbecoming observation of the German commen- 
tator Ammon, 



107 

full of Latinisms; incomparably more so than 
that of any one among the Apostolical writers, 
with, perhaps, the exception of St. Luke. In 
the same manner, Dionysius Halicarnassensis, a 
writer of the Augustan age, scruples not in 
Greek to use the terms irXtfiziot, irarpiKioi, SiKTarvp, 
and others similar, when he might clearly have 
avoided it, because he explains that wXr&uoi are 
the same with S^on/coi in Greek, and irarpiKwi 
with wirarpiSai. Wherefore then is it at all more 
unaccountable that St. Matthew should retain 
the original word KovwSia, and St. Mark kevtvjhwv 

and <TirEKs\aT(i)p ? 

It is admitted that the authors, who exhibit 
systematically instances of this nature, are few 
in number ; and that most profane authors of this 
era, if we except Polybius, have a less admix- 
ture of Latinisms with their Greek than the 
writers of the New Testament display. But it 
deserves to be considered that, in the case of 
profane authors, there was a restraining cause 
which did not operate upon the Apostles. No 
one of the former class ever wrote under exactly 
the same feelings with those which animated the 
writers of the New Testament ; that is, with a 
perfect and absolute disregard of their own re- 
putation. At a time when a contest for and 
against the purity of the Greek language was 
carried on between the literati and the body of 
the people, it is not surprising that profane au- 



108 

thors in general, siding with the learned class, 
were more on their guard against innovations 
which it was known that class would not ap- 
prove ; while the Apostles, greatly intent on the 
edification of the least considerable of men, and 
not at all on the advancement of their own re- 
putations, employed without reserve those forms 
of expression which common use had sanctioned 
and made familiar among the many. 

It is unavailing also to appeal to the example 
of Josephus, in proof of the possibility of a He- 
brew writer avoiding the Hellenistic style. The 
possibility of effecting this, if it were made an 
object of exertion, need not be disputed ; but 
the conduct of Josephus, as a writer, affords a 
contrast rather than a parallel to that of the 
Apostles. He accounts for the slowness with 
which his history was composed in Greek by 
saying, "it is a difficult thing to translate our 
history into a foreign tongue." Now, as his 
history had been already drawn up and pub- 
lished in Chaldaic, the facts and the arrange- 
ment of them were ready to his hand. The 
painful attention which he represents as neces- 
sary, must therefore have been exclusively be- 
stowed upon his style, and his difficulty could 
arise only from his earnest care to weed out all 
Hebraisms and foreign idioms, and to present a 
finished model of pure Greek composition. It 
is not surprising that he should, upon the whole, 



109 

have succeeded very w^ll in his attempt ; for 
Josephus appears to have been a man of perse- 
vering industry, and of sound judgment. But 
the practice of the Apostles displays little or no 
correspondency with his. The writings of the 
Evangelists have all the air of an extemporaneous 
narrative ; those of St. Paul were collected by 
others from his dictation, and probably not even 
revised. In short the point to which the atten- 
tion of Josephus was particularly and exclu- 
sively directed, appears to be the only one on 
which the Apostles never bestowed a thought ; 
and if the character of their writings be in most 
respects the very reverse of his, there is in this 
nothing more than their known difference of 
practice easily accounts for, and even gives us a 
previous right to expect to find. The same re- 
mark may be extended to Philo ; whose style 
differs, even more widely than that of Josephus, 
from the Hellenistic model. Philo prided him- 
self, and was universally complimented, on the 
purity and elegance of his phrases ; and wrote, 
as ambassadors in general do, to be read by 
statesmen and princes. Is it then reasonable to 
expect coincidence between a writer, whose am- 
bitious imitation of Plato has passed even into a 
proverb, and the simple-minded fishermen of the 
lake of Gennesareth, and the humble tent-maker 
of Tarsus h ? 

h " In Graecis innumera possunt observari quae ab antiquis 
criticis, dum purum ab impuro et doctum ab indocto et idiotico 



110 

But, previously to quitting this class of Ro- 
man words in Greek characters, it may be pro- 
per to notice more particularly two expressions 
which are ranged in it, but which do not appear 
in all particulars to resemble those words in the 
company of which they stand. These are wpo- 

k\v$WV Or evpaKv\(OV , tUld KpVKTt) . 

In the passage from the Acts it is not my de- 
sign to compare opposing authorities, or to de- 
termine by their aid whether evpo/cXvoW or evpa- 
kv\(ov be the true reading. Whichsoever of these 
may be preferred, the employment of the word 
by St. Luke may be explained without having 
recourse to any such hypothesis as that he wrote 
in Latin, and that his translator retained the ori- 
ginal word, only expressed in Greek characters. 

sermone segregant, annotata sunt. A Phrynico et Thoma Ma- 
gistro talia plurima recensita sunt et nota censorid compuncta, 
quae non excerpam cum legentibus obvia sint. Horum voca- 
bulorum frequens usus xvdaioXoytav facit ; in quod vitium ple- 
rique inciderunt qui ad scribendum accessere parum doctrina 
instructi, nee in legendis veterum scriptis, a quibus purior lo- 
quendi forma hauriretur, subacti. Tales omnino fuere omnes 
N. T. auctores, in Grseco sermone rudes et imperiti, atque, 

ut ipsi de se dicunt, ifauraw Nee mirum idiotis annumerari 

opifices, nautas, piscatores, portitores, quales fuere quorum opera 
usus est Christus ad verbum suum praedicandum. Non etiam 
porro mirandum si, Grseci sermonis adeo rudes, in idiotismum 
et xvdaioXoyiav saepe lapsi sunt, tarn verbis quam tota elocu- 
tion©." Salmas. 1. e. pp. 97, 8. 

1 Acts xxvii. 14. k Luke xi. 3S. 



Ill 

If, with the received text, we reacUv/oofcXuSwv, there 
can be no pretence for this opinion; for the word, 
though irregularly formed, is a Greek compound. 
The objection of Bentley to its being the genuine 
reading is that very irregularity. " The wind 
Euroclydon" he says, " was never heard of but 
here; it's compounded of evpog and kXvSwv the 
wind and the waves" With submission, however, 
to such authority, it is scarcely justifiable to say 
it " never was heard of but here." That it occurs 
not in any other writing now extant is admitted ; 
but this affords no proof that such an appellative 
was never heard of, or that it was not in common 
use among the Mediterranean seamen in the days 
of St. Luke. We meet with exceedingly few 
among the ancients who treat expressly of mari- 
time affairs; and with respect to the winds in 
particular, Aulus Gellius 1 remarks, that their 
names were of very unfrequent occurrence. Is 
then the irregular composition of the word to be 
admitted in proof that it is a spurious reading ? 
" It's compounded" undoubtedly " of evpog and 
k\v$(x>v the wind and the waves ;" an unlikely com- 
bination to occur if philologists and grammarians 
had been consulted. But if the word, as is most 
probable, were of far different parentage ; if ig- 
norant sailors, wanting a name for a wind which 
had none specifically attached to it, but of which, 

1 Noc, Att, II. 22. 



112 

as being often exposed to its fury, they were 
often obliged to speak, if men of this class were 
the inventors of the appellation, nothing can be 
more characteristic than cv/jokXvoW ; for what 
circumstances would be more likely to attract 
the attention of mariners than the quarter from 
which the wind blew (evpog the East) and its 
effect upon the ocean (kAvoW a deep swell.) ? But 
the author of Palseoromaica strenuously contends, 
that evpaKvXtDv is the true reading ra ; and that this 
word is the Latin Euro-Aquilo in Greek charac- 
ters. The first of these questions must be settled 
by the critics ; but, supposing their decision to 
be in favour of evpaicvXvv, it is our business to 
shew that there is no inconsistency in the belief 
that this word, of Latin origin, was used by St. 
Luke writing in Greek. 

Some stress has been laid, by all who have ex- 
amined this question, on the country to which 
the sailors must be supposed to belong, who 
manned the ship of Alexandria in which St. Paul 
embarked ; and different views have been taken 
of the probability of the case. This it is certain 

m In conformity with the opinion of " Grotius, Bentley, and 
some others." (p. 499) The Alex, and Vat. MSS. certainly read 
evpaKvXwvt though with another reading interlined (See Griesbach 
in loc.) and they are supported by the Vulgate ; and perhaps by 
the Ethiopic and Armenian translations. The latter has cvpa/euK- 
W : most probably through an error of the transcriber or 
translator. 



113 

can never be more than matter of conjecture ; 
but, from the nature of the voyage and the cir- 
cumstances of the ship, there is much more rea- 
son to conclude that these mariners were a 
mixture of two or perhaps of many nations ; than 
with Dr. Bentley to suppose that they were 
entirely Roman, or, with Mr. Bryant and the 
author of Palaeoromaica, that they were exclu- 
sively Greeks. " Let us suppose," the latter 
says, " that the mariners were Greeks, a thing 
exceedingly probable; this would only render 
the present Greek text more inexplicable, unless 
we suppose it a translation from the Latin. It 
seems impossible otherwise to account for the 
use of Corns and Euro-Aquilo, for the name of 
Adriatic given to the Ionian sea, which was 
much more likely to be done by a Latin than a 
Greek author in the age of the Apostles, and for 
several Greek words which seem to be corrup- 
tions of Latin ones n ," (p- 502.) 

In this passage every reader must remark that 
the author falls into the very error of which he 
accuses Mr. Bryant, and " begs the question 
that the Sacred Writer had used" Euro-Aquilo 
(p. 500,) and he appears to be somewhat too con- 
fident in assuming that it is impossible to account 
for the introduction of zvpaKvXwv, " unless we 
suppose the Greek text of the Acts to be a trans- 

11 Apj>* Note D. 
I 



114 

lation from the Latin." If it be absolutely ne- 
cessary to consider the language of St. Luke as 
influenced by the language of those with whom 
he sailed, can it be overlooked that, of whatever 
nation the crew in general' might consist, there 
were, beyond contradiction, many fellow-pas- 
sengers with the Apostles who used the Latin 
language ? namely, the centurion Julius and his 
band. That officer had treated the Apostles 
with great kindness; through which circumstance, 
as well as because both these parties, as passen- 
gers unengaged in the labours of the ship, had 
leisure for each other's conversation, it is probable 
that the Apostles would be thrown during the 
voyage much into company with these Romans. 
If therefore it be necessary to point out a source 
from which St. Luke might acquire the term 
zvpaKvXiDv, here is one very ready and probable. 
But this seems to be the proper place for a re- 
mark not only upon this word in particular, but 
upon the style of writing Greek universally, pre- 
valent in the compositions attributed to St. Luke. 
The birth place of this Evangelist is generally 
allowed to have been Antioch; but the Greek 
text of the Gospel and of the Acts (which all the 
world excepting the author of Palseoromaica at- 
tributes to his hand) is so full of Latin phrases 
literally translated, as to shew that the Latin 
language was very familiar to the writer; and 

t 



115 

that he was much accustomed to mix with 
those who spoke it. It does not appear that this 
peculiarity can be more naturally accounted for 
than by supposing (which no part of his known 
history forbids, and many parts of his writings 
seem to authorize) that his voyage to Rome in 
company with St. Paul was not his first visit to 
that city ; but that he might have been previously 
to this even a temporary inhabitant of Rome. His 
account of their making the coast of Italy and of 
their progress to Rome °, compared with his de- 
scriptions of other countries, has the appearance, 
as the author of Palaeoromaica justly observes, of 
being addressed to one who was familiar with those 
regions ; and this aifords a very strong confirma- 
tion of the correctness of Eutychius' opinion that 
Theophilus was " a notable and wise man of 
the Romans." That the Apostle's acquaintance 
with the latter may have commenced in Rome, 
and that he had been even a fixed resident there, 
is rendered still more probable by the profession 
of St. Luke ; supposing him to be the same with 
" Luke the beloved physician" mentioned by 
St. Paul. The practitioners of that art were 
about this time allured, by peculiar advantages, 
to fix their residence in Rome. We are told by 
Suetonius, that Julius Csesar, " omnes medicinam 

Acts xxviii. 13. 

J 2 



116 

Romae professos, et liberalium artium doctores, 
quo libentius et ipsi urbem incolerent et ceeteri 
appeterent, civitate donavit p ." 

That St. Luke, from this or some other cause, 
should have been in his earlier days an inhabitant 
of Rome, is by no means improbable. This is 
not mentioned here however with a view to 
shew that he would probably write in Latin, 
but to account for the appearance of so many 
Latinised terms and phrases among his Greek. 
Among these we may reckon his " defining the 
position of the port of Phenice by Corns, a Latin 
word q ;" and " the name of Adriatic given to the 
Ionian sea." But that the latter " was more 
likely to be done by a Latin than a Greek writer 
in the age of the Apostles," is an assertion which 
proves only its author's great unacquaintance 
with the literature of that period : for that very 
name by which St. Luke describes the Ionian sea 
is also bestowed upon it by Dionysius r , a writer 
of the Augustan age, whose authority sufficiently 
evinces that the same word may have been used 
by St. Luke, and by St. Luke writing Greek. 
'" But in the very verse," it is observed, " in 

p SueU Jul C. p. 65. 
* Pal p. 501. 

r Kai a-n-oireiMipaQ tig rov AAPIAN oXxaSa Svoiv toXclvtoivj ore 
fiiv airereiXev fXeyc npog rr\v \ir\Ttpa avrwv, on Ttav waidojp b kivSvvoq 
£i»j." Dion. Hal De, Lysia* Judic. C, xxvii, 



117 

which Euroclydon occurs, we read EBAAE (/car' 

aurrjc) avEfiog tvQojvikoc;, k. r. X. I SUSpect that 

FLO has given occasion to this strange use of 
|3aXXw, as B and V or F were often confounded," 
(p. 502.) Here he ought to have known that 
c&zXe Kar awTjc is equivalent to E7T£€aXe. k. a. and 
the latter verb is used intransitively, by St. 
Mark, in a very similar phrase 8 . With respect 
to the propriety of the word itself, we have |3oXn 
avfjuou for a gust of wind in Oppian, K. 4. 72. ; and 
the literal translation of the words cCaXe kut avTt\q 
avtfxoq the wind darted against her 1 , forcibly expres- 
ses the sudden violence of the storm. It deserves 
to be remarked that, in cases of this nature, we 
use in English the like form of a transitive verb 
in an intransitive sense ; as the wind dashed, the 
wind drove, the wind beat, against her ; which 
last is the marginal reading of our authorized 
public version. The same form of construction 
with that employed by the Evangelist occurs in 
Homer. 

" Tlpoist doXixoaictov tyx°G 
Kai fiaXtv Arptt^ao Kar' atnriSa iravrore i(Tt]v u * 

On which H. Steph. remarks, " Videtur autem 

s Mark iv. 37. For examples of fi a \\u> for £7ri/3a\Xw, See 
Jacob's AnthM. 59. and xi. 288. and Animadv. 312. 

" Ego ita, (3a\\oj Jacio, Jaculor quod posterius existimo pri- 
mae et primariae verbi signification! respondere." H. Stepk. 
Ep. de Typogr. statu. 

u II, r. 34:7. , 



118 

ilia constructio cum Kara similis esse nostrati, 
cum dicimus, II afrapp6 contre le bouclier." 

The remaining instance is, if possible, still less 
conclusive. " I had conjectured," he says, 
" that as arifxeia had by metathesis occasioned 
hiemes in the Vercelli MS\, so v^uav was a 
metathesis for autumnus" (p. 502.) Against this 
conjecture I shall oppose only the certain fact, 
that irapepxonai, applied to time, signifies always 
time past. But, though it might well be said 
that the fast of the Jews was past, as it really 
was, the writer could not mean to make any 
such assertion respecting the autumn ; since the 
autumn, though far advanced, was not past ; other- 
wise the mariners could not have hoped, as they 
did y , to carry the ship from " the Fair Havens' 
to Phenice " to winter there"'' The fast of the 
Jews, it is urged, has no relation to the subject. 
But it has a very near and natural relation to it ; 
for this fast took place on the 25th of Septem- 
ber ; and its being past shewed the lateness of 
the season, which was the point the Evangelist 
meant to describe, and the danger shortly to be 
apprehended from the flows peculiar to the Medi- 
terranean sea at that time of the year. If an Eng- 
lish writer were to tell us, in a similar case, that 
sailing was become dangerous because the har- 
vest was now passed, we should understand his 

* Actsxxvii. 9. * Ibid. vei\ 12. . 



119 

meaning, and the force of his expression, per- 
fectly well, although that season has no more 
direct connexion with maritime affairs, than the 
great fast of the Jews had. 

The only other expression in this class which 
requires to be separately noticed is /cpwrr?? z . 
This word by the author of Palseoromaica is 
assumed, and by many other writers is admitted, 
to be nothing more than the Latin crypt a con- 
verted into Greek. But, though St. Luke has 
Latinisms without number, this is not one of 
them. Schleusner, who is unwilling to admit 
that this is a Latinism, meets us with an ob- 
jection, and proposes to read tw k^vitt^v : not 
only without the sanction of any MS., but I 
must think without necessity. The only reason 
which he assigns for this innovation, is " recepta 
lectio (ac/ov7tttjv without the article prefixed) nul- 
lum ellipsin admittit *." But upon what ground 
does this opinion rest, when so many instances 
can be adduced of adjectives occurring without 
the prepositive article, where yet an ellipsis or 
quasi ellipsis is manifest ? 

In other genders than the feminine this is too 
obvious to require proof. Thus, in Aristophanes, 
Mnesilochus exclaims, 

<f Us 7T8 KaQtZoifi i.v icaXy, riuv pt)Top<i)v 

z Luke xi, 33. 

a Lex. A 7 . T> sub, v, rpttarr?. b Thesmoph. 299. 



120 

and in the New Testament, ev kovttt^ c , without 
the article, is clearly elliptical ; as is the ex- 
pression ug <j>avepov z\Qy d employed by St. Luke. 
In such a case as that of ug Kpyirrriv, the remark 
of Musgrave c is deserving of consideration : 
" Ego nullam hie ellipsin esse arbitror, sed tan- 
tum enallagen generis ; posito sc. &' optim pro &' 
opOov : nisi verius sit antiquos utroque genere, in 
hujusmodi phrasibus, sine ullo discrimine usos 
esse." If this opinion be well-founded, then 
uq KpvwTriv is equivalent to tig kpvtttov, which is 
the common reading: as 6 t$ tvavnag* is con- 
sidered by SchsefFer to be identical with 6 «£ 
tvavTicv. But, although grammarians have re- 
presented many phrases as elliptical which were 
not so, there are instances of a feminine adjective 
without the article, following a preposition, 
where the subject of the predicate is evidently 
wanting. " Probe," says Hermann, " ab hoc 
genere secernenda sunt ea quae vere ellipsin ha- 
bent. Quae sunt ejusmodi, ut verba quae posita 
sunt, ipsa natura sua, aperte vel certi vocabuli, 
vel saltern certce notionis, omissionem arguant. Ut 
&' opBug, t% lOtiag, quoniam sunt fceminino genere, 
non possunt nisi ad nomen fcemininum referri g ." 
Now, if this be true with respect to the expres- 

c John viii. 4. 10. d Luke viii. 17. 

€ Sophocl. Antig. 1006. 

f Tit. ii. 8. 

» De Ellip. In Viger. De Idiot, p. 874. Lips, 1813. 



121 

sions he mentions, «c KpvnTm' may, I feel assured, 
be admitted into the same class. There is evi- 
dently a part of the idea (notlonis certcs) not ex- 
pressed : for the similar passage in the same 
Evangelist h , and the parallel in St. Mark \ shew 
that the meaning of icpvirrr) is not " a vault" in 
particular, but " a secret, or concealed place " as, 
for instance, " under a bed" In the same man- 
ner St. Luke uses /car' iliav k , which Schleusner 
admits to be elliptical though redundant ; also 
vzai ra aKo\ia eig zvQuav \ where, though the arti- 
cle be away, oSov must be supplied ; and ug paK- 
pav m , where yjtopav, as in ug Kpvirrriv, is deficient, 
and uq is used for ev. The most convincing 
proof, however, that Kpvirrr\v was not designed by 
St. Luke to be taken as a substantive is supplied 
by the very omission of the article to which 
Schleusner objects, The words of the passage 

are, OvSzig $e, Xv^vov aipag, tig Kpvn-Trjv riOrjaiv, ov$£ 

vwo tov jioStov. Now, as the last word is con- 
fessedly the Latin modium in Greek letters, and 
has the article prefixed, it is certainly fair to argue 
that the article would, in like manner, have been 
prefixed to Kpvirrriv also, if the writer had de- 
signed to use that word as the representative of 
the Latin cryptam. 

» Lukeviii. 16. *Markiv. 21. 

k Luke ix. 10, ] Luke iii. 5, 

ra Acts ii. 39. 



122 

To proceed now to a different class of expres- 
sions. There occur, it is well known, in the New 
Testament, many phrases and single words which 
have not been discovered elsewhere, excepting 
in the Alexandrian Version of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures. That Version, by the general acquiescence 
of those who have written on the subject, has 
hitherto been regarded as the source from which 
the Apostles derived those peculiar expressions 
of which we now proceed to treat. It is impos- 
sible to state the grounds of this unanimous 
persuasion more sensibly or more correctly than 
has been done by Michaelis D . M Whenever a book 
is the subject of our daily lecture, it is natural 
that its phrases should occur to us in writing, 
sometimes with a perfect recollection of the 
places from which they are taken, at other times 
when the places themselves have totally escaped 
our memory. Thus the lawyer quotes the max- 
ims of his Corpus Juris, the schoolman the verses 
of his classics, and the preacher the precepts of 
his Gospel. It is no wonder therefore if the same 
has happened to the Writers of the New Testa- 
ment, who, being daily occupied in the study of 
the Old Testament, unavoidably adopted its 
modes of expression, or, to speak more properly, 
that of the Greek Translation, which they have 

n Vol. I. c. v, § 20. p. 200. 



123 

done in numberless instances where it is not 
perceived by the generality of readers, because 
they are too little acquainted with the Septua- 
gint.' 5 " But this/' says the author of Palseoro- 
maica " is begging the question ;" because " we 
are totally ignorant who were the Greek trans- 
lators of the Old Testament, and at what period 
the versions of the different books were made," 
(p. 299.) Concerning the names, the number, 
and the exact quality of those who are commonly 
called the Seventy, and whence the name itself 
originated, it must be candidly acknowledged 
that the world has no certain information. But 
I can scarcely believe that it is intended to found 
any serious argument upon this circumstance, 
since few points are established on less equivocal 
evidence than that a translation of the Pentateuch 
was executed at Alexandria during the joint 
reign of the Ptolemies Lagus and Philadelphus °. 

Philo Jud. Lib. II. de Fit. Mos. Euseb. Prcep. Ev. L. viii. 
Joseph. Ant, Jud. Si quid hie valeat vetustissimorum testium 
numerus, ea reliquas suffragiorum copia vincit sententia quae 
compositam versionem illo tempore perhibet, quo una cum patre 
suo, Ptolemaeo Lagi, regnavit Philadelphus ; quod biennio circi- 
ter absolvitor, et juxta Usserium (Annal. p. 1169) in Olympiadis 
CXXIV tiee primum, juxta Hodium p. 91. in Olymp. CXXIII e 
tise annos 3m. et 4m. hoc est ante aeram Christianam vulga- 
rem 286 et 285 incidit. — Carpzov. de Ver. Gr. LXX. Virali 
$ 2.— Ad librorum numerum quod attinet, eruditi solos libros 
quinque Mosis a Septuaginta Interpretatos probant. ut in lib. 



124 

The persons employed in this work were proba- 
bly Egyptian Jews : whether seventy two, or 
only five in number is a point concerning which 
we have uncertain and contradictory accounts, 
which it is unnecessary here to attempt to re- 
concile. But if this Alexandrian Version be the 
same with that which we now possess, and with 
that which existed in the days of the Apostles, 
it appears to be an inevitable conclusion that the 
Writers of the New Testament borrowed from 
this Version of the Old many words and phrases 
which they use in common with it ; and which 
they therein found already consecrated to the 
service of religion. To what resource then is 
the author of Paleeoromaica reduced in order to 
evade an inference so natural ; which, as it ac- 
counts for the prevalence of the Hellenistic style 
in the New Testament scatters to the four winds 
the hypothesis which attributes its origin to the 
mistranslation of a Latin text ? Aware of the 
danger which threatens him from this quarter he 
endeavours to escape under cover of two suppo- 
tions in the highest degree extraordinary and 

iv. Comment in Ezech. c. 16. affirmat Hieronymus ; id que ab 
Aristea, et Josepho, et omni schola Judaeorum asseri in lib. ii. 
Comm. ad ejusdem prophetae c. 5. idem pater adjicit. — Usserii 
Syntagm. deLXX. Interpp.ip.4t. — ede yap iraoav tKfivoQ t<p9ri Xafluv 
rr\v avaypa<pi)v, aXV avra fiova ra ra "Sofia 7rapeSo<rav ol Trefi<j>9evrtg em 
tk)v iZt)yr)<jiv irpog rrjv A\e%av8puav. Josep. Antiq. Jud. in Prooemio. 



125 

improbable, if not preposterous. First, that the 
Alexandrian Greek version has totally perished ; 
for " it has been much doubted whether even the 
present Greek Pentateuch be older than the 
reign of Herod. As to the other books of the 
Greek version we know not when they were 
translated; but probably those in our present 
copies, or the greater proportion of thein were 
not translated before the second century ."(p. 300.) 
Secondly, " there is nothing to prevent our sup- 
posing that several of the books of what we term 
the Septuagint, were really a version from the 
Latin/' (p. 305.) Although it is my desire and 
endeavour to avoid, as far as possible, the acer- 
bities of controversy, I cannot entirely suppress 
my indignation at the cold-blooded indifference 
with which this writer seeks to unsettle all opi- 
nions, and to introduce uncertainty and scepti- 
cism into every department of sacred criticism 
upon no better grounds than that such and such 
things may have happened ; although every kind 
of direct evidence be wanting, and that which is 
furnished internally by the documents themselves 
be totally adverse to his hypothesis. Of this we 
shall presently have proof in considering his 
hypothesis that the books which compose what 
we term the Septuagint, may be a version from 
the Latin. But in adverting to his first assertion 
that doubts have been entertained whether even 



126 

our present Pentateuch be older than the reign 
of Herod, it is impossible not to censure the 
unfair manner in which the author of Palaeoro- 
maica seeks to entrap the unwary by quoting the 
authority of great names as corroborative of his 
opinions, while in reality their testimony, if fairly 
stated, is directly adverse to his hypothesis. A 
memorable instance of this occurs (p. 299,) where, 
speaking of the version of the Pentateuch " made 
in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus," he says, 
" this version has, by Usher, and by some other 
persons of the most profound learning, been 
supposed to be lost." If any opinion, advanced 
in Palseoromaica, have indeed the countenance 
of such authority, I shall begin to regard it with 
more attention ; for Usher was a great and a good 
man ; distinguished by scholarship in an age 
abounding with scholars ; and who, to repeat the 
eulogium of his friend and fellow-labourer Brian 
Walton, in questions of biblical criticism, " merito 
primas tenet p ." But on the testimony thus 
adduced three observations require to be made : 
first, that the opinion of Usher is not correctly 
stated ; secondly, that this, almost alone of all 
the recorded opinions of this eminent critic, has 
failed to recommend itself to general adoption ; 
thirdly, that if the truth of that opinion were 

» Prcef. in Bib. Pol. 



127 

even demonstratively established, it would con- 
tribute no support whatever to the opinions of 
the writer by whom it is now quoted. Instead 
of attributing the version, which he supposes to 
have superseded the original Septuagint, to so 
late a date as the reign of Herod, Usher distinctly 
calls it the production of a Jew who lived about 
the era of Ptolemy Philometor q . Previously 
indeed to being placed in the Serapeum this 
version was revised by order of Herod, and freed 
from faults and corruptions which, through fre- 
quent transcription, had crept into the copies in 
common use. But the opinion of Usher respect- 
ing the loss of the original Septuagint and the 
existence of any such substituted version, has 

q Quum Ptolemaei Bibliotheca, tempore Alexandrini Belli a 
Julio Caesare gesti, conflagrasset, Hebraicum illud Legis exem- 
plar, simul cum Graeca illius Versione aLXX facta periit. Hujus 
loco, paullo post, Cleopatra regina novam in Serapeo constituit 
Bibliothecam ; quae prions film est dicta : Ut in libro de Mens. 
et Ponder, docet Epiphamus. Ad earn ornandam Herodes Ju- 
daeorum turn rex, libros sacros Instrumenti Veteris Hebraica 
lingua conscriptos misit ; ac Grsecam eorundem, quae Helle- 
nists in Syria et Palaestina turn in usu erat, interpretationem 
ab aliquibus Hebraice linguae peritis (ut videtur) recognitam 
et pluribus in locis emendatam. Syniagm. p. 31. — Hanc vero 
totius Vet. Instrumenti traductionem, ut ante ilium Euergetae 
38, ita post Philometoris fratris ipsius 4m annum (in Per. Ju- 
lianae ann. 4537 ante aeram Christ. 177 incidentem) in lucem 
esse editam ex historica ilia nota ad calcem libri Estherae in edi- 
tione vulgata Graeca apposita colligimus, p. 22. 



128 

been combated by arguments r , which have ap- 
proved themselves satisfactory to critics in ge- 
neral, but which need not be here repeated. 
Admitting even that the original copy of the 
Greek Pentateuch, which was placed in the 
Alexandrian library by Philadelphus, perished, 
as Usher supposes, during the siege of that city 
by Julius Caesar, still the destruction of the ori- 
ginal copy could not entail the total loss of the 
version itself. Can it be imagined, that no more 
than this single copy 9 existed of a version de- 
signed for general use and circulation ; without 
the assistance of which few individuals, and cer- 
tainly no entire congregation, could understand 
the contents of their sacred books ? It is 
unnecessary to protract this discussion ; since 
Usher's hypothesis, admitted in its utmost lati- 
tude, can lend no aid to that of Palaeoromaica. 
He maintains, it is true, that the Greek version 
of Philadelphus no longer exists ; but he carries 
back, as we have seen, the date of the transla- 

r Walton Proleg. ix. §. 18. and Valesii Ep. ad Usser, in 
Euseb. H. E. p. 306. " Non refutabo Usserii Armachani opinio- 
nem, verius paradoxon dixeris," says Father Simon with unneces- 
sary rudeness, and which the Priest of the Oratory would not 
have displayed towards any but a Protestant Prelate. 

8 Usher himself indeed admits the probability of the contrary 
opinion, saying, " Licet in privatorum manibus (post incensam 
priori bello Alexandrino Philadelphi Bibliothecam) veteris illius 
Seniorum Versionis adhuc exempla extarent." Synt, p. 25, 



129 

lion which does exist, and has succeeded to the 
name and place of the former, as far as the reign 
of Ptolemy Philometor; that is, to more than 
170 years before Christ, or to within little more 
than a hundred of the date assigned to the pri- 
mary version which perished in the conflagration 
of the Alexandrian library. Even this date, 
therefore, ascends far enough beyond the begin- 
ning of the Christian era to admit of the version, 
to which it is affixed, having been in the hands 
of the Apostles; and the appeal to Usher to 
prove that, if his opinion be correct, they could 
not have borrowed from our Septuagint the 
peculiar words and phrases which they employ 
in common with it, is not only very unfair, but 
is perfectly nugatory and delusive. The cause 
of Palaeoromaica, I repeat, cannot be assisted by 
any one of the suppositions in which the author 
of it indulges. Let him assume, if he will, that 
" the present Greek Pentateuch is not more an- 
cient than the age of Herod," what would this 
prove but that before the age of Christ, and 
among the countrymen of the Apostles, a dialect 
was in use precisely conformable to that which 
prevails in the New Testament, and which was 
therefore the most natural for the Apostles them- 
selves to employ ? 

But though for the sake of argument, and to 
give our opponent every possible advantage 
which he can claim, such an opinion may, for a 

K 



130 

moment, be contemplated as well founded, the 
admission on my part is nothing more than hy- 
pothetical. So far from conceding, that there is 
any truth in the comparatively recent date as- 
signed to the existing Greek Pentateuch, I am 
of opinion that the appearances therein discover- 
able are reconcileable with the supposition of its 
being the original Egyptian version, and with no 
other : and by this internal evidence I am led to 
conclude, that the Pentateuch now in our pos- 
session is virtually the same with that which 
owed its birth to the age of Philadelphus. That 
it is of Egyptian origin is manifest from the fre- 
quent occurrence of words either wholly Egyp- 
tian, or used at least in senses peculiar to Alex- 
andria % It may be objected that such a pecu- 
liarity might be expected to prevail in every ver- 
sion executed in the same country ; and that, 
therefore, the use of Egyptian terms, although 
it may prove that our Pentateuch is of Egyptian 
origin, does not prove that it cannot be the same 
with the version, which Usher supposes to have 
been executed in Egypt in the reign of Philome- 
tor, and to have usurped the name of the pri- 
mary Greek translation. But there is still ano- 

1 See Sturz. de Dial. Alex. Maced. v. a \r}Qsia, p. 96. (clxxv. 
ed. Valpy) ; and Schleumer's Lex. Vet. Test, sub eadem v. 
also on the word ^ov9ofi $avnx* likewise the list of Egyptian 
words collected by Sturzius, p. 86—100. (clxxiii. clxxv.) 



131 

ther peculiarity observable in our Greek version 
of the Old Testament ; that is the marked and 
constant distinction of style existing between 
the books of Moses and the other parts of the 
volume ; a distinction, I need scarcely observe, 
uniformly advantageous to the former u . If then 
we have before us the version which is dated 
only from the age of Philometor, whence did 
this distinction arise, and how can its existence 
be accounted for ? That version Usher sup- 
poses to have been the work of a single indi- 
vidual, of a learned Jew x : and the production of 
one man could scarcely exhibit that diversity 
which evidently and confessedly exists in our 
Greek Bible ; especially between the Penta- 
teuch and the other parts of the volume. But 
if we possess in all its main points, though not 
in perfect and absolute integrity, that version 
which from the beginning has been called the 
Septuagint, the distinction of style, here noticed, 
is perfectly natural ; and to account for it we 
need only briefly retrace the circumstances un- 

Q rt Josephus qui 70 Interpp. proponit historiam, quinque 
tantum ab eis libros Mosis translatos refert ; quos nos confite- 
mur plus quam caeteros cum Hebraicis consonare, inquit Hie- 
ronymus in Quaest. Hebraic. Geneseos prooemio." Usser. p. 1 0. 

* " Post quartum igitur Philometoris Ptolemsei annum, ut 
Gentium curiositati, Judaica sacra penitus intelligere desideran- 
tium, aliquo modo satisfaceret, a Judceo altqv.0 opus hoc perac- 
tum fuisse videtur." P. 23* 

K 2 



132 

der which the parts of that version were succes- 
sively completed. 

It is, as we have seen, the generally received 
opinion, that in the reign of Philadelphus the 
Pentateuch alone was translated into Greek: 
and that this undertaking originated not in any 
interposition of the authority of Ptolemy, as the 
blundering fabulist Aristeas would persuade 
us, but in the general wants of the Egyptian 
Jews themselves, is most probable under the 
known circumstances of their situation. They 
were, as we learn from Josephus, strict and scru- 
pulous copyists of the religious observances which 
prevailed among their brethren in Palestine ; and 
if there were any ordinance peculiarly calculated 
by its utility to recommend itself to their imita- 
tion, it must have been the practice of reading, 
in conjunction with the original law, a translation 
or paraphrase, for the instruction of the common 
people who were no longer acquainted with the 
language of their fathers y . 

y " Exoleto inter Judaeos, post reditum ex Babylone, linguae 
Hebraicae usu, vulgari turn lingua ipsorum doctores scripturas 
interpretabantur. In scholis ubi Lex docebatur, id Judaicis 
versionibus seu paraphrasibus, de quibus egimus, occasionem 
dedit.— — Vero simillimum ergo et apud Hellenistarum Syna- 
gogas, quemadmodum et alias, Legem Hebraice quoque legi 
solitam fuisse, sed cum hoc ab reliquis discrimine, quod textui 
Hebraeo Graecam interpretationem addiderint." Simon. His. 
Crit. V. T. Lib. II. c. 2. p. 91. 



133 

In this respect the Jews of Egypt were simi- 
larly circumstanced with those of Judea ; and as 
a Chaldee version became necessary at Jerusalem, 
to enable the congregation to derive instruction 
from the public reading of the Law, so, to the 
same end, a Greek version must have been 
equally necessary to the jews of Alexandria z , to 
whom the Greek language was at that time most 
familiar. If therefore the due administration of 
public worship suggested the advantage and 
necessity of a Greek translation, it is reasonable 
to conclude that such a translation would in the 
first instance embrace the Pentateuch alone; 
since no other portion of the Old Testament was, 
in this age, read in public before the congrega- 
tion*. Let it be granted then that we possess 
the Books of Moses which were thus translated 

r " Ipse Philo, Lib. in Flaccum, confirmat, suo tempore, non 
minus quam decies centena millia Judaeorum in iEgypto habi- 
tasse. His itaque avita et Hebraea lingua cum sensim paulatim 
que obsolesceret, et in desuetudinem abiret, Graeco tantum 
sermone in quotidiano commercio usis, viri pii et prudentes 
prospectum iverunt, Legem que Mosaicam, cujus prae reliquo 
Codice Sacro usus erat et religio, in Graecum, omnibus que 
cognitum, transtulerunt sermonem." Carpzov, de Vers, 70. §. 
II. 6. 

a " Veterum pro hac sententia auctoritates Pseudo-Aristeae, 
Josephi, Philonis, Aristobuli, Rabbinorum antiquorum, et Hie- 
ronymi, doctissimus Hodius (Lib. II. c. 7. p. 159 seq.) eum 
cura congessitj vindicavit, nobis que, hac parte, otium fecit. Et 
res ipsa sic ferebat ut potior Legis cura translatoribus esset* 



134 



separately, and with the sanction, if not under 
the inspection, of the Sanhedrim, and the dif- 
ference of their style from that of the other 
Books, which were translated at different sub- 
sequent periods, is naturally accounted for : on 
any other supposition the manifest inferiority of 
the latter cannot be reasonably explained. 

The translation of the prophetical books may 
with great probability be assigned to the reign 
of Ptolemy Philometor, when the temple at 
Heliopolis was founded by Onias, as a rival 
to that of Jerusalem 5 . The Jews of Egypt, 
while they professed a total independence on 
their brethren in Judea, were never able to divest 
themselves of a strong disposition to imitate the 
religious practices established in that land, to 
which their tribes, wheresoever dispersed, have 
continually looked as to their native country. 
In that country a great and important revolution, 
as to the affairs of religion in particular, had 

Ptolemaeorum quippe horum temporibus non nisi Lex Mosaica 
publice praelegebatur in Synagogis ; reliquis librorum sacrorum 
ordinibus, Prophetis atque Hagiographis, neglectis et intactis." 
lb. $. III. 2. See also Simon H. Cr. Vet. T. Lib. II. c. 2. and 
Sturz. de Dial. Alex. Mac. §. I. 

b " Oniam Sacerdotem, post egregiam Philometori et Cleopatras 
navatam in bellis operam, eorum permissu, in agro Heliopolitano, 
Templum Hierosolymitani semulum extruxisse in lib. xiii. Antiq. 
c. 6. idem Josephus narrat : hoc etiam ibidem addito : kvpe Se Oviag 
KailaScusg rivag ojjLotag avTy «at Upug kcli \ivirag tsq ckci Sprjaictvovrag, 
Usser. 1. c. 



135 

recently been effected by Antiochus Epiphanes. 
The conduct of that conqueror, his rending in 
pieces the books of the Law, and forbidding 
them to be read in the public worship of the 
Jews, are related 1 Mace. i. 56. and the resource, 
of which the Jews were hereupon obliged to avail 
themselves, was that of reading portions of the 
Prophets instead of the Law c . Now although 
Antiochus in his several expeditions, previously to 
the interposition of the Romans, had over-run 
nearly the whole of Egypt, yet, as he never ob- 
tained possession of Alexandria, it is not to be sup- 
posed that he had power to prohibit the use of 
the Pentateuch to the Egyptian as he had done to 
the Syrian Jews. But the studious imitation by 
the latter of every religious observance intro- 
duced among their brethren is so well established 
as to render it exceedingly improbable that the 
introduction of the prophetical books into the pub- 
lic worship at Jerusalem, which was occasioned by 
the edict of Antiochus, should not be followed by 
a corresponding change in the conduct of the ser- 

c This order of persecution extending only to the five books 
of Moses and not to the writings of the Prophets, those who 
persisted in the Jewish worship, instead of the lessons which had 
hitherto been, from the time of Ezra, read out of the Law, on 
every Sabbath did read like portions out of the Prophets ; and 
upon this occasion the public reading of the Prophets was first 
introduced into their Synagogues ; and, it being thus introduced, 
it continued there ever after. Prideaux Connect. Part II. B. 3. 
p. 259* Vol. 3. 



136 

vice of the tabernacle in Egypt. In fact the 
design of Onias was to detach the Egyptian 
Jews from their custom of annually celebrating 
the Passover at Jerusalem, and this he could 
hope to effect only by rendering Heliopolis so 
like Jerusalem in its entire religious establish- 
ment, as to leave no room for a pretext that, by 
visiting the latter city, they enjoyed opportu- 
nities of instruction of which they were unable 
to avail themselves at home d . This opinion will 

d Onias, having this power and interest with the king, made 
use of it at this time to obtain from him licence to build a Temple 
for the Jews in Egypt, like that at Jerusalem, with a grant for 
him and his descendants to be always High Priests in it. For 
the obtaining of the King's consent hereto, he set forth to him 
that the building of such a temple, for the Jews in Egypt, would 
be for the interest of his crown ; that Jerusalem, being within 
the territories of the King of Syria, the going of the Egyptian 
Jews thither annually to worship might give occasion for the 
seducing of them to the Syrian interest. But his greatest diffi- 
culty was to reconcile the Jews to this new invention ; their 
constant notion having been that Jerusalem only was the place 
which God had chosen for his worship, and that it was sin to 
sacrifice to him upon any altar elsewhere. To satisfy them as 
to this he produced to them the prophecy of Isaiah ; where it is 
said " In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the 
language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of Hosts : One of 
them shall be called The City of Destruction. In that day shall 
there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, 
and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord," xix. 18, 19. 
And having interpreted this place of the Holy Scripture, which 
was truly meant only of the future state of the Gospel in that 



137 

appear to be still more probable when it is re^ 
collected that the mode adopted by Onias to 
reconcile the Jews to this substitution of a new 
place of worship, was to put a false gloss on a 
passage in one of the Prophetical Books ;. and it 
is probable that this very opportune mis-transla- 
tion was introduced by him who had so great a 
purpose to serve by means of it. To Onias 
therefore, and to his agency, we may with a 
very high degree of probability attribute the 
translation of the Prophetical Books into Greek; 
because, without such a step as this, it does not 
appear that he could have assimilated, so com- 
pletely as his proceedings prove him to have 
wished, the worship at Heliopolis to that which 
prevailed at Jerusalem ; nor could he, in any 
other way, have reconciled his countrymen to 
the desertion of that temple, which, from the 
earliest ages, had been regarded as " the place 
where men ought to worship." 

The great inequality and inferiority of style 
observable in these books compared with thoset* 
of the Law, agree very well with the supposition 

country, as if it respected the present times, he prevailed with 
all of his nation to understand it so too, and thus served his 
purpose by it. Prideaux, 1. c. p. 873. The device of Onias 
was, as the same writer tells us, by the change of a single letter, 
to convert the Hebrew word which signifies The City of Destruc- 
tion, into one which signifies The City of the Sun, or Heliopolis ; 
and there his temple was founded. Fid, Marg. Read, in Author, 
Vers, 



138 

that the translation of them was executed by a 
variety of hands, and to supply a sudden emer- 
gency, such as must necessarily have arisen on 
the proscription of the Law by Epiphanes. But 
if we must suppose that under the name of the 
Septuagint we possess any oth^r translation than 
that which is known to have been executed by 
different persons and at sundry periods, the dif- 
ference of style in the several books, and the 
marked superiority of the Pentateuch above the 
rest, are perfectly inexplicable. If the version 
of Aquila, of Symmachus, of Theodotion, or of 
the Jew who according to Usher was the author 
of the second Egyptian version, were now in our 
hands, having usurped the place and title of the 
primitive Septuagint, such a diversity would 
hardly be perceptible in the work of an indivi- 
dual. If it be pretended that our Greek Version 
may be compounded of fragments taken from all 
of the above, it may be asked on what evidence 
does this assertion rest ? how is the fact known ? 
11 dr, if not known, upon what ground is it con- 
jectured ? We should still require an explanation 
whence it arises that the Pentateuch is by its ex- 
cellence uniformly distinguishable from the rest ; 
and at all events, the supposition that our Greek 
version is a compilation from an indefinite number 
of other versions, would be to explain effects by 
recurring to a cause of uncertain existence, while 
an adequate solution, grounded on historical evi- 






139 

dence and well-established facts, is within our 
reach ; a mode of proceeding than which none 
can be more uncritical or unphilosophical. The 
Book of Daniel, it is true, as it exists in our 
Septuagint is admitted to be the work not of the 
original translators but of Theodotion. Instead 
however of arguing from this that other parts of 
the version may be, unknown to us, the work of 
later translators, I must maintain that this fact, 
under the circumstances of our acquiring a 
knowledge of it, leads to a directly contrary 
conclusion. "We believe that the Book of Daniel 
has been borrowed from the Greek version of 
Theodotion because we are on competent autho- 
rity assured of the fact ; and because, since the 
publication of Daniel according to the LXX., the 
attestations of our informants have been abun- 
dantly confirmed. Surely then we are justified 
in concluding that, if any other book or books 
had been extracted from other translations, the 
same informants would have given us similar 
notice of it ; and from their total silence as to 
any farther substitution we are at liberty to rest 
quietly in the persuasion that none other has 
taken place. 

The only argument of any validity, which has 
ever been urged against the identity of our Greek 
Vulgate with the Philadelphian Version of the 
Pentateuch, is the slighter accordance with the 
Hebrew exhibited by the former, in comparison 

5 



140 

with that excessive perfection which the Jewish 
writers declare distinguished the performance of 
the LXX translators 6 . But even this objec- 
tion will appear to be rather specious than solid 
when we recollect the sources from which our 
accounts of this marvellous conformity are drawn : 
namely, the writings of the Hellenistic Jews. 
By these, it is certain, many fabulous relations, 
now universally exploded, were invented solely 

e " Nos summo studio, cura et diligentia LXX Interpp. cum 
Hebraeo contulimus, et tot invenimus addita, dempta, depravata, 
immutata, et ab Hebraico prorsus aliena, ut mihi persuadere 
nequeam illam esse LXX Interpretum." Sant. Pagnin. in Isagog. 
c. ix. 

" LXX. Interpretes dicuntur omnia transtulisse ad verbum, ita 

proprie ut quicunque sciret utramque linguam statim judicaret 

fidelissimam esse translationem. Sic enim scribit Philo, lib. 2. 

de Vita Mosis. Reddita sunt propria propriis nominibus, 

Graecis ad Chaldaica exacte respondentibus. Id experimentis 

quotidianiscreditur; sive Chaldseus Graecam linguam, siveGrae- 

cus Chaldaeam didicerit, in utraque Scriptura, turn Chaldaica 

turn ejus interpretatione, miratur germanitatem, imo rerum ver- 

borum que consonantiam adorat. Neque solus Philo, sed 

etiam Aristeas ante Philonem testatus est admirabilem fuisse 
* ... 

rerum et verborum consonatiam &c. At ista Graeca versio quam 

nunc habemus in plurimis locis dissentit ab Hebraeo, multa non 

habet quae sunt in Hebraeo, multa habet quae non sunt in Hebraeo ; 

ut omnes noverunt qui in ea versati sunt. Et qui de hac re ob 

linguarum imperitiam judicare non possunt, legant Hieronymi 

praefationem in Pentateuchum, Epistolam ad Sunium et Fretel- 

lam, Questiones Hebraicas Commentar. in Prophetas, et Librum 

de optimo genere interpretandi," Cardinal Bellarmin quoted by 

Usher, p. 6, 7. 



141 

to procure a factitious credit for this translation. 
The commendations bestowed on its adherence 
to the original are of the most loose and general 
description, and therefore probably exaggerated ; 
particularly as it was natural for the Egyptian 
Jews to extol to the utmost the only document 
from which they derived any acquaintance with 
the Law and the Prophets ; and in their commen- 
dation of which it was impossible that any one 
who was not a Jew should contradict them. The 
principal witnesses in the case are obviously 
incompetent ; Aristeas as having been in other 
instances convicted of the most deliberate false- 
hood ; and Philo, from his ignorance of Hebrew f , 
being necessarily obliged to speak from the re- 
port of others in the decision he pronounces 
concerning the fidelity of the LXX translators, 
could be but a very imperfect judge of the accu- 
racy of his own statements. The truth appears 
to be that the Philadelphian translators executed 
their task with sufficient correctness, which Aris- 
teas magnified into an undeviating conformity with 
the original ; and his hyperbolical statements, 
being adopted, without examination, by Philo, 
contributed to propagate this persuasion among 

f Quod Philonem et Josephum asseris in lingua Hebraica in- 
fantes plane fuisse, si modo quid omnino Hebraice scivisse dicendi 
sunt, ut de Philone, Hellenista Alexandrino, libenter id dem, de 
Josepho Sacerdote Hierosolymitano concedere non possum. 
Jac. Usserii adLudov. CappelL Epist. 



142. 

the succeeding Jews, who, in questions of this 
nature, were sufficiently willing to be deceived. 
In fact, with respect to this version the Jews 
have exhibited a very Protean disposition. So 
long as the supposed credit of their religion re- 
quired them to magnify the merits of the Septu- 
agint Version, they carried their commendation 
of it to even an absurd excess ; when, after the 
coming of our Lord, they were called to reply to 
arguments derived from those Greek Scriptures, 
it then suited their purpose to discover its de- 
fects ; and their depreciation of it now became as 
excessive as their commendations had previously 
been extravagant g . To be prepared against such 
objections, Sophronius, as is stated in Palseoro- 
maica (p. 305) desired Jerome to make an accu- 
rate version from the Hebrew into Latin which he 

* Origen relates in his Commentary on St. Matthew, that in 
the manuscripts of the Septuagint, which was become the Bible 
of the Greek Christians, such alterations had been made, either 
by design or through the carelessness of transcribers, as to make 
the MSS. materially differ from each other, and of course, even 
if no other cause prevailed, from the Hebrew Bible. Of this 
difference the Jews availed themselves in their controversies 
with the Christians ; as it frequently happened that the passages 
quoted by the Christians against the Jews, were either not con- 
tained at all in the Hebrew or contained there in a different 
shape, the arguments, which were founded on such quotations, 
fell immediately to the ground ; it was sufficient to reply " the 
words which you quote are not in the original." Bp. Marsh's 
Lectures, Part. I. p. 55, <5, 



143 

afterwards translated into Greek. This retrans- 
lation by Sophronius, be it remembered, was 
specially executed to be employed in questions 
of controversy against the Jews. When therefore 
it is asked (p. 306,) " what is to hinder us from 
supposing that our present Septuagint version of 
the Psalter, and of several of the Prophets may 
be that of Sophronius from the Latin of Jerome ?" 
the reply is easy ; that our present Septuagint 
version exhibits not that entire accordance with 
the original which it was the object of the joint 
labours of Jerome and Sophronius to produce ; 
and that they did succeed in producing it, so far 
as to satisfy their own intentions and to answer 
the end which they had in view, is evident from 
the terms in which Jerome speaks of the perform- 
ance. If therefore our present version, or any 
part of it, were the work of Sophronius it would 
necessarily exhibit the particular character which 
he not only designed to prevail, but certainly 
succeeded in communicating to it ; namely, an 
accordance with the Hebrew against which the 
Jews could object nothing. It is indeed a sin- 
gular circumstance that the proposer of such an 
opinion should fail to discover the inconsistency 
of railing on the one hand at the inaccuracy of 
the Septuagint, and on the other requiring us to 
believe that it may be the work of Sophronius ; 
which, from all that we know of it, was distin- 
guished from the Septuagint only by its rigid 



144 

adherence to the Hebrew. Surely he ought 
rather, on his own principles, to infer that our 
Septuagint is the same version with that to which, 
previously to his executing a new one for himself, 
Sophronius was accustomed to refer ; namely, 
the work of the Alexandrian translators : for our 
version displays exactly that degree and kind of 
inaccuracy of which the Jews might avail them- 
selves to evade an argument resting upon its 
authority. It is somewhat singular, and cannot 
be flattering to the author of Palseoromaica, that 
we are thus indebted to the Jews, the bitterest 
enemies of our religion, for a defence against the 
danger to be apprehended from one who pro- 
fesses himself its friend. 

Passing onward, with the same view, to the 
translation of Aquila, he observes, this " learned 
man published two versions of the Hebrew 
Scriptures ; and I have a strong suspicion that the 
first of these was a Latin one," (p. 301.) From 
the accounts of the two distinct versions, or 
editions of the same version, by Aquila, to be 
collected from the writings of Jerome, it is evi- 
dent that in the first his attention was chiefly 
directed to express the sense of the Sacred 
Oracles, but not " verbum verbo ;" in the second 
his design was to give an exact verbal represen- 
tation of the original, so that the most minute 
particle in the Hebrew should not be without its 
corresponding expression in the Greek. By this 



* 145 

servile adherence to verbal precision, sense and 
grammar were oft-times totally subverted. Never- 
theless the translation thus executed was, from 
its literal fidelity, called kut aicp&eiav by the 
Jews h ; and by them, as well as the Christians \ 
was appealed to as affording a perfect exemplar 
of the original, and even as superseding its ne- 
cessity and use. But the use to which the au- 
thor of Paloeoromaica seeks to apply these facts 
is such, as a blind devotion to his own hypo- 
thesis could alone have suggested. " Jerome 
tells us that he (Aquila) interprets as it were 
syllables and letters ; saying, for example, aw 
rov ovpavov, Kai aw rr\v yw. This which is part 
of the first verse of Genesis, must indeed, in this 
version, be acknowledged to be nonsense ; but 
/ strongly suspect " (a very forcible reason why 
others should also think !) " that Aquila wrote 
In principio creavit Deus CUM et caelum TUM et 
terrain, and that cum and turn, both translated 
aw, gave rise to the Greek barbarous text." 
(p. 301.) If any one shall choose, in opposition, 
strongly to suspect that the translator did no such 
thing as is here imputed to him, I am fully per- 

h Hieron. Coram, in Ezech. c. iv. 

1 " Justinus aliquando Aquilse versionem, celeberrimam apud 
Judaeos consulit, et, in disputatione contra Tryphonem, Hebrceum 
(hoc est illam ipsam versionem quam Hebrseam Patres ideo 
vocabant, quia verbo verbum Hebrseo respondebat) aliquoties 
producit." Sim. H. C. V, T. Lib. ii. c. 3. 

L 



146 

suaded that the writer of the above sentence has 
no argument to offer in support of a conjecture 
which he somewhat ostentatiously claims as his 
own k . If Aquila, or whoever translated his 
Latin, had been so ignorant of Greek as to con- 
ceive that CUM, in the above passage, was 
equivalent to aw, he could hardly have failed of 
translating TUM also literally ; and his version 
would in all probability have been aw rov ov- 
pavov TOTE km tw yw. But in reality the jus- 
tice of Jerome's criticism, and the source of 
Aquila' s mistake, are self-evident to any one 
acquainted with even the rudiments of He- 
brew. In that language, it is well known, 
the same monosyllable (riN) is used as the pre- 
positive article, and in the sense of the prepo- 
sition with : and aw tov ovpavov Kai aw rr\v yw is 

a literal translation, by one who confounded 
these two senses, of ywn r\m own ntf. But 
other arguments are yet in store. Aquila was 
a native of Sinope ; and it is not to be conceived 
that " a Latin, born in a Latin colony, should 
publish two Greek versions of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures, while he utterly overlooked the wants 
of his countrymen." (p. 301.) This is indeed 
" begging the question," if it be intended to as- 
sume that the countrymen of Aquila, the citizens 

k " I have no where seen such a conjecture." P. 301. It 
would be strange if he had. 




14T 

of Sinope, required a Latin version. Sinope 
was, it is true, a Roman colony, (as were many 
other cities in Asia and Greece) but the intro- 
duction of a few foreigners could not occasion 
an entire change in the language of a city, the 
inhabitants of which had spoken Greek for ages. 
It is much more probable that the colonists, or 
at least their descendants, would be merged in 
the native population, forgetting their Latin ori- 
gin, and adopting the language of the place* 
But, it is farther argued, " if Aquila had not 
been a Latin, his name would have been Asroc iJf 
Upon what principle ? we may ask. Most emi- 
grants, even if they give up the rest of their na- 
tive language, retain their own name, and trans- 
mit it to their posterity. The utmost that can 
be inferred from the name of Aquila is, that he 
was of Roman descent ; not that he was by 
birth a Latin, or that he spoke the Latin lan- 
guage. To shew the futility of such an argu- 
ment, let the author of Palseoromaica consider 
how many foreign names he can recal to his re- 
collection, the possessors of which have been na- 
turalized during many generations, and would 
deem it no slight offence if their right to the 
name of Englishman were for a moment ques- 
tioned. In this indeed, as in many other in- 
stances, our author may be made to refute him- 

1 Note 222, p. 301. 
l2 



148 

self; for since he maintains (p. 111.) that Theo- 
philus, with a Greek name, was a Roman, why 
may not Aquila, with a Latin name, have been a 
Greek? If the former at Rome did not change 
his name to Deodilectus, what should lead us to 
conclude that Aquila would be called Acroc in 
Sinope ? 

In the case of Symmachus not the semblance 
of an argument is offered to prove, that of his 
two editions (were it even certain, which I think 
it is not, that he published two), one was in 
Latin. The words of Jerome m certainly imply no 
such thing. Symmachus, he says, translated 
a certain Hebrew word by the Greek zZaiptrov 
" pro quo verbo in alio volumine, Latino sermone 
utens, peculiarem interpretatus est." The words 
in alio volumine, I should translate in another work 
or volume n ; and all which Jerome affirms is that, 
in some one of his Latin writings, Symmachus, 



m Comment in Tit. ii. 

n Hody (p. 587,) shews, that Symmachus was the author of 
an Exposition of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, and 
probably of other books of the New Testament. He was 
reckoned among the wise men of the Samaritans, as we learn 
from Epiphanius, and was of such authority among the Ebio- 
nites that they were called Symmachians from him. Such an 
eminence he could scarcely have attained without exhibiting 
himself as a voluminous writer ; and as the author of Palaeoro* 
maica quotes Lambecius, to prove that he was counted among 
the Latin fathers, his theological works were most probably 
chiefly composed in that language. 




149 

quoting the text in question, rendered that word 
by peculiarem, which, in his version, he had 
translated ^aiperov. As to the probability of our 
Vulgate Septuagint having been of his compo- 
sition, it is negatived at once by internal evi- 
dence. The character bestowed upon the trans- 
lation of Symmachus, by the concurrent testi- 
mony of the ancients, is that in it he studied 
perspicuity ; which, according to the testimonies of 
Jerome and Eusebius, he succeeded in attaining 
in a very high degree : he avoided Hebraisms : 
his object was to admit no expression which 
could occasion doubt or difficulty to any one 
who understood Greek but not Hebrew °. Now 
I will leave it to any impartial judge, or to the 
author of Palaeoromaica himself, if he have ever 
read the Septuagint, to determine whether there 
appear in it any one of the characteristics by 
which the version of Symmachus is said to have 
been distinguished ; whether, on the contrary, 
it do not exhibit the very opposite qualities; 
being often obscure in its meaning ; filled with 
the harshest Hebraisms ; and in many places 
even unintelligible to those who are unacquainted 

p " Perspicuitati operam adeo dedisse memoratur Montfau- 
cono ut, vel in difficillimis locis, sensum ita legenti exhibeat, u* 
statim intelligatur. Hebraismos raro sectatur. Summopere 
curasse videtur ne quidpiam in Graeca serie poneret quod Grae- 
cum lectorem, Hebraice ignarum, offendere posset." Carpzov. 
1. c. §. iv. 



150 

with the original. Can any man in his senses 
then maintain, that our Septuagint translation 
and that of Symmachus are one and the same ? 

There remains however another resource ; that 
of attempting to shew that the Septuagint ver- 
sion, as it has existed for many ages, is so muti- 
lated and depraved, that its identity with the 
original can no longer be maintained ; and in 
support of this assertion an appeal is made to 
the testimony of Jerome. " Jerome, whose ge- 
nius and learning gave him great authority in 
the church, was never weary of declaiming 
against the corruptions of the Septuagint," (p. 
305.) This father, I admit, was accustomed to 
speak slightingly of the Septuagint Version, after 
he became acquainted with the Hebrew tongue, 
and was no longer obliged to trust to the au- 
thority of others as to its true character. But 
the question now to be considered is not whether 
the Alexandrian be a faithful or an incorrect 
translation, or whether Jerome gave it a just 
character when he spoke ill of it ; but we are 
concerned to know whether Jerome thought that 
the version in his possession, with all its corrup- 
tions, was the same with that which was made 
in the age of Ptolemy, and which was quoted 
and sanctioned by Christ and his Apostles. Now 
it is undeniable that, however Jerome . may de- 
preciate the version, and accuse it of being in 
many places interpolated and corrupt, he no- 



6 






151 

4 

where expresses a doubt of its being virtually 
the identical work of the Alexandrian transla- 
tors. When he was vehemently accused of be- 
ing misled by his fondness for Jewish learning, 
and of deserting the ancient translation which 
the Apostles had handed down to the church, 
he never thought of clearing himself by shewing 
that the world was mistaken in attributing so 
venerable a character to the Septuagint transla- 
tion. A step which, under the odium which 
pursued him, he must assuredly have taken, if he 
had believed it to be only a version of recent 
date, or made up of fragments strung together 
from other translations. But he admits this 
translation to be the same with that which the 
Apostles used, and only urges the expediency 
of recurring to the Hebrew fountains with a 
view to the removal of those blemishes which time 
and inadvertence had introduced into the 
Greek p . He professes in fact to have nothing 
farther in view than to effect for the Latin Church 
that which Origen had attempted to perform for 
the Greek q . 

p " Declaravit ergo et professus est palam, se novam tantum 
ideo vereionem concinasse, ut non amplius Judaei Christianis 
insultarent ; neque se versioni Septuaginta, ab universa Ecclesia 
receptee, praejudicatum ire ; contendere se tantum quo Judaeis, 
Versionem LXX calumniose traducentibus os obstrueret ; et idem 
Latinis, quod Graecis olim praestiterat Origenes, praestaret." 
Simon, I. c. Lib. II. c. 3. 

q Jerome indeed expressly affirms that he considered the 



152 

But, it is objected, " this great writer (Origen) 
by the publication of his Hexapla, and by his 
intermixture of different versions with diacritical 
points, contributed probably to increase that 
confusion, which it was one of his great purpo- 
ses to remedy. These diacritical marks were 
neglected or misunderstood, and thus a medley 
of different versions was produced,'' (p. 303.) 
The absolute degree of utility which has resulted 
from the well -intended labours of Origen it is 
utterly impossible for us to determine : but the 
mere fact of his proposing to correct and amend 
the version of the Seventy, involves, as a neces- 
sary consequence, that he supposed he had, 
however corrupted, the Septuagint itself before 
him. It is very evident indeed that his attention 
was directed to the emaculation of the more 
antient, or Philadelphian version; and not of 
that translation, of later date, which Usher sup- 
poses to have been communicated by Herod to 
Cleopatra. If the purity of the latter had been 
the final object of his labours, there is much 

text of the Greek translation, preserved in the Hexapla, as the 
genuine production of the LXX ; and as distinguished from the 
editions in common use, by its freedom from those errors which, 
to a greater or less degree, prevailed in all those copies. " 'xoivn 
autem ista, hoe est Communis Editio, ipsa est quae et Septua- 
ginta. Sed hoc interest inter utramque, quod koivtj pro locis et 
temporibus, et pro voluntate scriptorum veterum corrupta editio 
est ; ea autem quae habitur in 'MairXoig, et quam nos vertimus, 
ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata Sept* 



153 

reason in the question of Baronius r . Why he 
should have bestowed such pains on the restora- 
tion of a text, the original copy of which was 
still in existence ; and which it was in his power 
at any time to inspect by merely taking a walk 
to the library of the Serapeum ? In deducing the 
genealogy of our present Greek Version we are 
able most satisfactorily to shew that the original 
Philadelphian Septuagint was the subject of 
Origen's labours ; and, although the subsequent 
neglect of his diacritical marks may have added 
to the confusion of the text, there is still reason 
to hope that the mischief is not quite irremedi- 
able. According to Jerome's account of the for- 
mation of the Hexapla, whenever a passage was 
found in the Greek version, having nothing cor- 
responding with it in the Hebrew, it was the 
custom of Origen to place before it a virgula or 
obelus to signify that it ought to be retrenched ; 
where, on the other hand, a passage existed in 
the Hebrew which was omitted in the Greek, 

Interpretum translatio reservatur. Quicquid ergo ab hac dis- 
crepat, nulli dubium est quin ita et ab eorum auctoritate discor- 
det." Hieron. Epis. 135. ad Suniam et Fretelh 

r " Cur enim (inquit Baronius) adeo laboratum ab Origene 
primum, deinde a Luciano, postea ab Hesychio Alexandrino, 
in ea cognoscenda, emendanda, ac in candorem pristinum resti- 
tuenda, si ipsum originale suppetebat exemplar ; ex quo potuis- 
sent omnia, quam, verissime, atque purissime, summa facilitate, 
corrigi et emendari ?" Usher, L c. 



154 

the deficiency was supplied by him from the 
version of Theodotion ; an asterisk being placed 
before the words thus introduced. Since then 
the whole * of that column of the Hexapla, which 
contained the Version called by Origen the 
Septuagint, has escaped the ravages of time, and 
yet survives in the work of Montfaucon, ex- 
cepting only that the virgulae and asterisks no 
longer appear in their proper places, what fol- 
lows but that we possess the whole of what Origen 
believed to be the genuine Septuagint version, 
together with certain additional passages, from the 
version of Theodotion, here and there incorpo- 
rated with it? In a critical point of view, and in 
many other points of view, it is greatly to be 
lamented that these additions from Theodotion 
cannot be now discriminated*; but, as far as 

8 See Bishop Marsh's Theological Lectures, Part II. p. 123. 

1 The possibility of restoring the pre-Origenian text, to a 

considerable extent, is thus stated by Usher. " Ad commu- 

nem vero illam editionem quod attinet, in qua quae a LXX 
aberant ex Theodotione ab Origene suppleta fuisse diximus, earn 
cum suis asteriscis et obelis prorsus perisse non recte sensit 
Martinus. Psalterii editio vulgata Latina, obelis et asteriscis 
distincta, cum Brunonis Herbipolensis Episcopi commentariis, 
anno 1531 a Johanne Cochlseo in lucem est emissa. Liber 
Josuse. Graece et Latine ejusmodi notis signatus, Andrea? Masii 
opera prodiit : penes quern et reliquos V, T, libros historicos in 
versione Syriaca, similiter notatos, extitisse" diximus. Librum 
Jobi ex Graeco ab Hieronymo Latine, et libros Mosis aba lio 
aliquo Arabice versos, eodem modo inter stinctos, in publica Oxo- 



155 

the truth or untruth of the Palaeoromaican hypo- 
thesis is connected with the antiquity of our 
present Septuagint, the circumstance is of no 
importance whatever. For estimate the addi- 
tions from Theodotion at the highest possible 
amount ; suppose them to compose a hundredth 
of even a fiftieth part of the entire version, as it 
appears in our editions, can it be pretended that 
this is sufficient to destroy the identity of the 
composition? or that, in consequence, we no 
longer possess the Greek version as it came to 
the hands of Origen, and as he believed it to have 
existed in the age of the Apostles ? Can it with 
reason be suspected that all the marked expres- 

niensis Academiae bibliotheca vidimus. Geneseos quoque, Levi' 
tici, Numerorum, Deuteronomii, Josuce ac Judicum fragmenta 
quaedam Graeca vetustissima, obelis et asteriscis signata, Clau- 
dius Sarravius, in Parliaments Parisiensi Consiliarius Regius ; 
integram vero Esaiez et Jer emice prophetiam, asteriscis insignitatn, 
communicavit nobis Patricius Junius, Regius nuper apud nos 
Bibliothecarius ; quorum alterum per literas tantum nobis 
notum, alterum amicum intimum et integerrimum morte 
nobis ereptum, luctu serio prosecuti sumus. Neque est quod 
diffidamus in aliis Europae bibliothecis libros quoque caeteros 
reperiri posse asteriscis saltern ita illustrates, ut per eos 
ex Theodotione adjecta supplementa a reliquo Vulgatae edi- 
tiorris textu discerni valeant. Obeli enim, ut in codice Rupe- 
fucaldiano, ita in aliis, fere, Graecis MSS. ut honori ru>v 6 eonsu- 
leretur, videntur praetermissi : quod ea, quae in his superflua 
erant, tanquam veru jugulare putarentur et confodere. Sed 
istos restituendi, Graeci textus cum Hebraico collatione facta, 
facilis est ratio : asterisci vero absque librorum subsidio recupe- 
rari omnino non possunt." Syntagm. I, c. p. 104, 5." 



156 

sions, which are common to the Greek Bible and 
the Greek text of the New Testament, are derived 
exclusively from those parts of the former which 
have been borrowed from Theodotion ; and are 
therefore more recent than the Apostolic age ? 
Can it be safe on such a foundation to build an 
hypothesis no less at variance with history and 
probability, than it is affronting to the reputa- 
tion of the Sacred Writings, and destructive of 
the evidences of religion ? 

Previously to quitting this part of the subject 
it may be proper to add one remark concerning 
those " other editors, less fitted" for the task 
than Origen, who published Greek editions of 
the Scriptures/' (p. 303.) The history and the 
performances of Lucian and Hesychius are very 
imperfectly known ; but the Alexandrian and 
Vatican MSS. of the Septuagint, as they mani- 
festly contain different recensions, have been, 
not without reason, supposed to present the texts 

u In what the peculiar unfitness of these editors consisted I 
cannot determine ; nor do I believe that the author of Palaeo- 
romaica can tell. It appears to me, I candidly confess, a very, 
suspicious peculiarity that he is never sparing of his insinuations 
against those who have laboured, in whatever manner, to pre- 
serve the integrity of the Scriptures, and to maintain their ge- 
nuineness and authenticity : while his commendations are reserved 
for those whose torpid industry is chiefly exerted in endeavour- 
ing to raise difficulties and to discover blemishes, which their 
efforts, after all, cannot exalt into importance. 



157 

revised by these two editors. Now, whatever 
may be the differences subsisting between these 
two recensions, and they are neither few nor 
unimportant, it is somewhat curious that the 
various readings do not extend to even a single 
word of those on which this part of the Palaeoro- 
maican theory rests. Having taken the pains to 
collate the various readings of the Alexandrian 
MS. with the text of the Roman edition, re- 
printed at the Clarendon Press, I find that, among 
the words common to the Septuagint and the 
New Testament, which have been fixed on in 
Palaeoromaica as probably derived from the 
Latin, there is not one which does not exist, 
without the slightest variation, in both recensions. 
It is therefore plain that, whatever the text may 
have suffered in other respects, these words at 
least, and upon these the question turns, were 
not of the invention or interpolation of either 
Hesychius or Lucianus. The unison of the MSS. 
in these instances, while so many variations 
exist elsewhere, seems rather to lead to the in- 
ference that the words noticed as of Latin, and 
comparatively reeent extraction, formed^ a part 
of the original Septuagint, and have been left 
in it undisturbed by every subsequent editor. 
Upon any other principle than that they formed 
a part of the Greek Bible in the age of our Sa- 
viour, and were copied from it by the Apostles, 
their appearance in the manner in which they da 



158 

appear in the New 1 Testament, cannot be ac- 
counted for without the grossest violation of the 
ordinary rules of probability* For suppose the 
New Testament existing in the Latin language, 
and to be rendered into Greek by translators 
proceeding on the principle of selecting the 
Greek word from its similarity in sound to the 
Latin one. That they should be able in such a 
number of instances to discover, in the Septuagint, 
words affording this " chime or echo" is almost 
too marvellous for belief; but, that the words, 
thus found, should not only agree in sound, but 
in very many instances should communicate a 
peculiar emphasis and propriety which the original 
did not and could not convey x ; and that all this 

* An instance of this is afforded by the word tyKofttuoaaQe. 
1 Pet. v. 5. which in Palaeoromaica is supposed to be " no 
other than the Latin word incumbite," (p. 195.) I cannot help 
remarking that if this were the fact, and if " chime and echo " 
were the sole considerations by which this supposed translator 
was guided in his choice of words, he would unquestionably 
have preferred eyjco/iSovrt, as bearing a much closer resemblance 
than eyKOfiSuxraoQe does to the word incumbite. But let this pass* 
It is impossible however not to notice the singular good fortune 
of a translator, who, proceeding upon no more definite principle 
than that which is in this work attributed to him, has yet 
fixed on a word which Parkhurst calls " beautiful and expres- 
sive ;" and which (see his explanation of it) comprises a variety 
of allusions, not one of which can have been suggested by the 
supposed prototype incumbite. The same remark an attentive 
reader cannot fail to extend to an entire class of words common 
to the Jewish and the Christian covenant, by which indeed the 



159 

should be the work of men translating at hap* 
hazard, and under the guidance of their ears 
and eyes rather than of their understandings, is 
altogether such a concatenation of improbabili- 
ties as must surely awaken the suspicions of 
credulity itself. If this be a true representation 
of what occurred, and of the manner in which 
the Greek text of the New Testament was com- 
posed, I can only remark that it annihilates, at 
one stroke, the system of a writer, for whom 
in Palaeoromaica great admiration and respect 
are professed — the ambiguous Conyers Middle- 
ton ; by shewing that an actual miracle (for no- 
thing less can it be esteemed) was performed 
after the close of the second century. 

The reliance of the author of Palaeoromaica is, 
however, not so much on any general principle, 

connexion and harmony between the two is surprisingly kept up 
and secured. " In the New Testament he will find all the 
terms relating to propitiatory sacrifices, made use of by the Sep- 
tuagint translators, so applied to the death of Christ upon the 
cross, as to give no room for a suspicion that they are not there 
applied in their strict and proper sense." Philip Skeltoris Ser- 
mons — Christ the true and proper Sacrifice for Sin. Vol. I. 
p. 257. So thought and so reasoned no mean proficient in 
theology; but we are now required to think that he was de- 
ceived ; and to admit that this continued application of the 
sacrificial terms of the Old Testament to the death of Christ in 
the New is purely accidental ; the appearance of a designed and 
divinely appointed connexion between them, as between the 
shadow and the substance, having its origin solely in the mis- 
conceptions of an ignorant translator. 



160 

as on the collection he has formed of separate 
words and phrases. Some of these, as we have 
seen, are certainly Latin in Greek characters ; 
others he conceives to be formed from the Latin, 
with such slight variation that the resemblance 
in sound still leads us directly to the original ; 
a third class has been formed by transposition of 
letters and syllables in the Latin ; another has 
been introduced through erroneous etymologies, 
abbreviations, and lacunae of MSS., through a 
confusion of terms nearly synonymous, and by 
other similar causes. In all these instances, it 
is assumed, the sense is so cleared, and so many 
difficulties are solved, by supposing the present 
Greek text to be only a very bad translation of 
a previous Latin text, that this hypothesis carries 
evident marks of being the true one ; or is, at 
least, much more probable than any other which 
can be suggested. According to the laws of 
strict reasoning I am not aware that we could 
be bound, in any case, or in solution of any* 
difficulties whatever, to adopt an hypothesis of 
this description ; an hypothesis growing out of 
no previously established facts, but arbitrarily 
founded on conjecture and assumption. In the 
instance of the Apostolical writings I am at all 
events certain that we are reduced to no such 
necessity, because no difficulties have been 
proved to exist in them which do not admit of 
a less violent solution ; and I am sincerely of 



161 

opinion that, in spite of the Classes and Disquisi- 
tions of Palaeoromaica, most readers, of plain un- 
derstanding and of common sense, will still pre- 
fer the hypothesis that St. Mark and St. Paul 
were the authors of their own writings. A ques- 
tion may undoubtedly be raised how a certain 
style came to prevail in those writings ; but 
there is no difficulty unless there be no reply, or 
only an unsatisfactory reply. That style, it is 
alleged, is not the very best that can be ima- 
gined. Admitted : and if it were, we then in- 
deed might have a real difficulty in shewing that 
it could be the production of those men, un- 
learned and of a humble rank in life, to whom 
the writings are attributed. But our Greek 
text contains many very strange words, and 
words employed in unusual senses ; it exhibits 
solecisms, barbarisms, and it is hard to say what 
other improprieties of diction y : and we cannot 
suppose that these proceeded from the Apostles 
themselves. We reply, Wherefore not ? The 
Apostles wrote not in their native language, nor 
in one which they had been grammatically 
taught ; but in one which they acquired by 
hearing it spoken as a provincial dialect. The 
phrases current in Palestine, however remote 
from Attic purity, were therefore unavoidably 
incorporated in their style ; while an additional 

y Palceor. passim. 
M 



u 

source of unauthorized idioms was open to them 
in the Alexandrian translation of the Scriptures, 
and in the daily increasing prevalence of Latin 
terms and expri I, arising from the subjec- 

tion of their country to the Roman The 

1 With respect to phi -.vhich arc obviously nothing more 

than Latin, translated literally into Creek, the most simple hv- 
hesis is surely that which supposes the Evangelifltl and 
Apostles themselves to have been the translators. It is mani- 
fcet that a speech or laying, no left tlian a writing, may be thus 
rendered into a language different from that in which it was 
uttered. As an instance, the words \kuvop *roo/<rai ry oxXy are 
a literal translation of satisfaccre nopulo ; which last were pro- 
bably the words actually -employed and communicated to the 
writer. But this, and other instances of the kind, can evidently 
furnish no proof, nor even presumption, that the entire Gospel 
was written in Latin, unless it be first shewn to be impossible, 
or exceedingly improbable, that St. Mark himself should lite- 
rally translate into Greek two Latin words, which had been 
communicated to him, as having been employed by Pilate, or 
by those who were acquainted with the motives upon which he 
acted in this affair. Greek words, occurring in the Sacred 
Writings, but not discovered in profane authors, stand in a dif- 
ferent predicament, and are to be defended on other principles. 
We do not possess, it is to be remembered, an hundredth or 
even a thousandth part of the works which have been composed 
in Greek. If all of these survived, it is most probable that 
every word in the Apostolic writings might be defended by the 
example and authority of one or more ancient writers. " Prae- 
cipue," as observes Salmasius, " si illi extarent qui plebeio 
stylo et idiotico res ac vitas privatorum scripserunt. Ex his est 
apud profanos Laertius Diogenes, qui vitas philosophorum literis- 
mandavit ; et refertus est idiotismis tarn in singulis vocibus quam 
in tota phrasi." De Hellen. p. 107. 



163 

taste of the Apostles had never been so culti- 
vated as to teach them the great evil of sole- 
cisms ; and, being desirous only of recording 
faithfully the facts which they knew to be true, 
and of stating those arguments with which they 
were furnished by inspiration, without any view 
to derive personal reputation from their writings, 
they were even less attentive in their selection 
of words than nun of their own rank, and their 
[Hals in education, writing from human mo- 
tives, would have been. To this I must add, 
that the difficulties which do exist in the inter- 
pretation of the New Testament, are invidiously 
magnified in the work before me ; and that many 
of the obscurities arise only from the mistaken 
conceptions of the writer by whom they are 
pointed out. Upon the subject of alleged obscu- 
rity I would recall to his recollection the sen- 
sible question of Casaubon. — u Quid? solus hie 
obscurus ? non etiam optimus quisque attentissi- 
mum et 7roXi^ia&(rrarov requirit lectorem ? Non 

COmmemorabo Thucydldis a rag irzpivor)<jHq t rag 

" TXuxTfftjfiaTiKa, \iiv ovv, kcii aTrr]pxai(x)fitva, Kai ovoiiKaara toiq 
TroXXotf iotiv, to, Tt * Aicpai<pvt£' <ai 6 l JlfQiXoyia^iog' Kai r) ' Jlepi(jJ7rT) ' 
<ai t) ' Avcuewxi ' <at ra bpoia tovtoiq. Hoiii-iKa ct i) re ' KwXv/i)j ' Kai 
i] ' YIpeaGtvffia.' Kai i) ' KaraSoX?; ' Kai i) ' Ax^owj/,' /cat jJ l AiKaio)criQ t ' 
xai ra irapaTrXtiaia' y) b' tv roig (Tx r ll iaTl<r f i0l G KaivoTTjg n Kai ttoXv- 
rociria, Kai rj tZaXXayt) rrig avvtiOovg xP £<ri<jJ Q> *v y fiaXiffra oia<f>fpeiv 
avrov rjyovjxtQa ru>v aXXwv, nzi tovtojv yiyverai rwv tpyutv <pavepa." 
Dionys. Hal. Ep. 2. ad Ammceum de Us quce Thucyd, propria 
sunt. The same critic objects to the great Athenian historian, 

M 2 



164 

tfTTrepi&oXac, ra "yAu>ar<TrtyiaTi/ca /ecu £,eva, ra avaKoXovQa, 

et similia multa, quibus obducta caligo ingens 
ejus Historiee. Silebo Platonis tclq aKparovg /cat 
awriveiQ fitTCKpopag de quibus Longinus. Hoc so- 
lum dieam ; maximarum difficultatum ea potissi- 
mum scripta esse plena, quae omnium seculorum 
docti homines maxime sunt admirati. Quis Pin- 
darum intelligent aut Aristophanem, absque 
eorum interpretibus ? quis, Grsecis Uteris doc- 
tus, choros tragicorum inoffenso pede percurrit ? 

that ™ he converts verbs into nouns " (ovonaortKwq <rxw aTL ^ u ) 
"nouns into verbs" (ra ovofiara Voiei gn para) " uses passive 
verbs for active and the converse (aXXarrce ra «&/ ra»v iraQriri- 
kuv Ken fvspyrjriKojv) singular for plural, masculine for feminine, 
and vice versa," with many other peculiarities. After this we 
may well ask, Nos offendent Paullince difficultates 'i There is 
nothing new under the sun, except the inference which the au- 
thor of Palseoromaica seeks to deduce from the phenomena 
which he notices in the New Testament. A child might tell 
him that, if it be more probable " to suppose that the genius of 
Paul may have had injustice done to it by an imperfect transla- 
tion," because obsolete and obscure expressions occur in his 
writings, and the figures are novel and unprecedented, while 
solecisms of gender, voice, number and the like, are occasionally 
apparent, if this be a just inference in the case of St. Paul, then 
the appearance of precisely the same blemishes of style in the 
writings of Thucydides would seem to prove, that the writings of 
Thucydides also have come down to us only in an imperfect 
translation. So common a book as the Port-Royal Greek 
Grammar may shew that such phrases, as f/ iraiQ eyeipov, and xaipe 
o fiaciksvg, are no evidences of translation ; otherwise there is 
scarcely a classical Greek author whose text will not be exposed 
to the like imputation. 



16i 

Theocriti ra atcXripa notant veteres critici ; neque 
indignantur. Nos offendent Paullince difficul- 
tates b r 

Men of humble and candid minds can admit 
but one hypothesis, that the Books of the Chris- 
tian Religion are such as their Almighty Author 
designed they should be : evidently the pro- 
duction of persons incapable of inventing either 
the facts or the doctrines which they promul- 
gate; and, by those very defects which their 
untutored manner of writing exhibits, proving 
that a Greater Power was in operation to ac- 
complish the eternal purposes, which these, his 
humble instruments, were commissioned to re- 
veal. 

I shall now proceed to select for examination, 
a competent number of the instances which are 
classified in this fourth Disquisition, (p. 229 — 
263) as so many proofs of a Latin original ; di- 
recting my attention principally to those wfyich 
it is attempted to support by some shew of rea- 
soning ; or by the allegation of some difficulty, 
arising from the mode of expression in the Greek, 
which would be removed by a recurrence to the 
Latin. If, in all these cases, it should be made 
to appear that the reasoning is founded on false 
principles, that the alleged difficulty arises only 

b Proleg, in Persium, 



166 

from the objector's misconception of the author's 
design, or from his own imperfect acquaintance 
with the Greek language, I trust the reader will 
do me the justice to believe that the same con- 
clusion might be established in every other in- 
stance, had it been thought necessary to go 
through them all. I have forborne to notice any 
greater number, not because it would be diffi- 
cult to answer them, but because the specimen, 
here given, may suffice to shew the general cha- 
racter of the work, and the credit due to this 
kind of cumulative argument ; and farther I must 
add that the remarks, by which the remaining 
instances are accompanied, betray in general 
such a spirit of hasty and puerile criticism, that 
to expose their inconclusiveness, at any greater 
length, would be a wearisome as well as a need- 
less undertaking. The reader will please to ob- 
serve that in the first instance is set down, from 
the Vulgate text, the Greek word concerning 
which the debate is raised ; after that the Latin 
word from which the Greek is supposed to have 
been derived ; with a reference to the page of 
Palseoromaica from which the quotation is taken ; 
and last of all are added such remarks as seemed 
necessary to clear the sense of the sacred writer 
from misrepresentation, to support by due au- 
thorities the expression objected against, and to 
shew that the solution proposed in Palseoromaica 



167 

is always unnecessary, and, in a great number of 
instances may be proved to be demonstratively 
false. 

At' vfiepwv. Demorari*. (p. 229.) The Latin 
text is supposed to have been nearly as follows ; 
" Et rursus intravit in Capernaum DEMORARX." 
And again he entered into Capernaum to tarry, or 
abide. This supposed Latin text then, judging 
from this specimen, was not, more than our 
present Greek, distinguished by classical purity. 
But this is unimportant. The only pretext, by 
which the existence of any Latin text whatever, 
and this imputed mistranslation of it, could be 
rendered plausible, would be that the phrase, 
&' ijjuspwv, is so singular, so void of meaning, and 
so contrary to all precedent, as to render the 
supposition, of its having proceeded from the 
Evangelist, a manifest absurdity. But how is 
any such case of difficulty established? The 
expression objected to is a manifest Hebraism, 
and, even by the Greeks, would hardly be con- 
sidered as unauthorized. In the Pentateuch the 
word 0*0* is used in like manner to signify an 
indefinite number of days ; as Gen. iv. 3. d^ YpD 
which is translated fxeO' yfiepag ; and Gen. xxiv. 
55. o*D* Wl Itftn " Let the damsel abide a few 
days." Neither is the use of &a, to denote an 
indeterminate interval, unprecedented in the 

c Mark ii. 1. 



168 
classic writers : as " Hv & evSov kcu 6 warvp 6 tov 

YloXefiapyov KetyaXog* Kai /uaXa irpea^vrrig /not £o\)£«v 
tivaC A1A XPONOY yap Kai twpaicsiv avrov '. i. C 

interjecto aliquot tempore: and Beza so renders 
§i r\fizpb)v interjectis aliquot dieibus. 

EKrpwjULaTi. Extremitate* . (p. 229.) " It is evi- 
dent that an abortive child is one that is born 
not after, but before the time ; and that, in this 
view of the matter, the Apostle Paul would have 
seen the Lord sooner than any other person." 
Upon the slightest consideration, I think it will 
be evident, that the writer of the above sen- 
tence had no right conception of the meaning 
of the words on which he undertakes to com- 
ment. The reason why St. Paul bestows 
this epithet upon himself is, that he had been 
constituted a preacher of the Gospel without 
undergoing that previous probation by which 
the other Apostles had been gradually formed 
to their office ; and he therefore compares him- 
self to a child which had not gone through the 
regular period of gestation. It is plain that such 
an abortive child cannot be entitled to equal 
consideration with those who have come regu- 
larly to the birth ; and, pursuing this notion, St. 
Paul, in the excess of his self-humiliation, repre- 
sents his having seen the Lord last of all, and 
after that privilege had been vouchsafed to all 

d Plat, de Rep. prope init. e 1 Cor. xv. 8. 



169 

the other Apostles, as a suitable mark of his 
own inferiority to his brethren. With respect 
to any difficulty arising out of the use of the 
prepositive article in this case, (or from his call- 
ing himself not acrpw/iart but T(i> eKTpwpaTi,) it has 
been occasioned by not considering that St. 
Paul here speaks of himself, not individually or 
unconnectedly, but as a member of a particular 
family, or of what might be termed the house- 
hold of Christ. Having mentioned our Lord's 
previous appearances to those other members of 
that household, who might be considered as hav- 
ing obtained their stations through the regular 
course, contrasting the mode of his own appoint- 
ment with theirs, he adds, " and last of all he 
appeared to me, as being the one (out of all these 
brethren) who was born out of due time." 

For the following illustration of the employ- 
ment of the word eKrpw/ua itself, I am indebted 
to the same kindness to which I have before al- 
luded. " Extat hoc vocabulum in Alexandrina 
Versione f . Grammatici antiqui statuunt non 
adhiberi ab iis qui purse dictionis et Atticae ele- 
gantise laudem sequantur ; neque tamen ejus 
usum refugit Philo 1. Leg. Alleg. p. 54. C. — 

Ov 7rt(pviC£ yovi^iov ovScv tcAeo (jtopeiv t} tov ^avXov 
^vyji* av £c Kai Soku npoacjtepeiv, ap&XwSpiSia evpiatceTai 

Kai EKTPQMATA. Non est aptus ad gignendum 

1 Jobiii. 16. 



170 

quidquam perfectum ignavi animus : quod siquando 
viietur foetus gignere, abort ivi reperiuntur. Conf. 
Trilkrus. ad Thorn Mag, p. 319." — L'oesner. Ob- 
servat. ut supra, p. 295. 

Ett^wct/cw. Offusco s . (p. 220.) After atten- 
tively considering the remarks of Michaelis and 
his very learned translator, on the difficulty of 
the above passage, I must avow my persuasion 
that the solution is to be sought nearer the sur- 
face. The Jews, it is well known, began to 
reckon their natural day from the evening ; the 
Romans theirs from an hour which, taking the 
medium, might be considered as that of morning 
twilight. St. Luke therefore, wishing to express 
that a particular day was beginning to the Jews, 
uses a word which he would naturally have em- 
ployed to denote the beginning of a Roman day. 
In the latter case it would have been strictly and 
physically correct to use the word emfaaicio : be- 
cause the dawning and the beginning of day were 
simultaneous ; but, in the case of the Jewish 
Sabbath, which began at eventide, the expres- 
sion can be used only in what may be called its 
derived and adventitious sense ; and abstractedly 
from its original meaning. This employment of 
the word, it will be said, is improper ; and it is 
admitted, in strictness, so to be. But in every 

s Luke xxiii. 54. 



171 

language, as it is ordinarily spoken, how many 
words, particularly those relating to artificial 
divisions of time, are used in an acquired and 
unnatural sense, which constant custom alone 
could occasion to pass unnoticed ? Suppose St. 
Luke to have said to (m&arov E^cuo-zce, when it was 
growing dark, I cannot think that he has been 
guilty of a greater impropriety than one which 
all critics have overlooked and pardoned in Cae- 
sar; who, speaking of the length of the nights in 
a polar winter, uses the words, " Complures prce- 
terea minores objects insula existimantur ', de quibus 
insults nonnulU scripserunt, DIES continuos triginta 
esse NOCTEM V 

TlapEKTOQ. Peractus' 1 . (p. 231.) " What is more 
certain is that, more than once, in the New Tes- 
tament, the Greek iraptKrog seems to be a mere 
corruption of the Latin peractus. Thus Matt. v. 
32. TraotKTQQ Xoys 7ropvauc, which in its usual in- 
terpretation, saving for the cause of adultery, is 
(besides the redundancy of Xoyoc) in opposition 
to our Lord's precept in the parallel passages k , 
where putting away one's wife is absolutely for- 
bidden. It appears to me, then, that the Latin 
had been peracto crimine adulterii ; and that our 
Saviour's sentiment is, ' Whosoever shall put 
away his wife, having instituted a suit of adultery 

h Bell. Gal. v. IS. J 2 Cor. xi. 28. 

k Mark x. 11. Luke xvi. 18. 



172 

against her, causeth her to commit adultery/ 
The phrase peragere reum means to implead one 
and prove him guilty," (p. 161.) Thus cavils, and 
thus comments the author of Palseoromaica. I 
am sensible that to enter into a laboured refuta- 
tion of one, who is so very indifferent a scholar 
as to think that to institute a suit is crimen pera- 
gere, is, in reality, actum agere ; to do a very 
unnecessary thing. But, not to deny him any 
satisfaction, let Juvenal set him right upon this 
point. 

" Quum scelus admittunt, superest constantia. Quid fas 
Atque nefas tandem incipiunt sentire PERACTIS 
CRIMINIBUS V 

Does the Satirist mean, by the employment 
of this identical phrase, to imply that the perpe- 
trator of a crime becomes internally sensible of 
the difference between right and wrong, only 
when a suit is instituted, and he is impleaded and 
proved guilty ? No : he maintains the very reverse; 
that, antecedently to all discovery, and inde- 
pendently of any danger of it, the guilty con- 
science is tormented with remorse from the very 
instant that the crime is committed. The criticism 
on 2 Cor. xi. 28, is, in like manner, founded on 
an entire unacquaintance with the principles of 
Greek construction, and with the meaning of the 

1 Sat. xiii. 237. 



173 

Apostle. The words of St. Paul, if it be not 
assuming too much to quote them as his, are 

XtojOic rtov irapzKTOQ, rj gTricrucrracric fis, r\ /ca3 riptpav, rj 

jmepifiva iraaiiiv tu)v £KK\r)GL(i)v. " Besides those 
things which are from without," i. e. besides the 
persecution and ill usage which are heaped upon 
me by those who belong not to the flock of 
Christ "there is that crowd of care, which cometh 
daily upon me, my anxiety for all the Churches." 
What room is there then for the tasteless imagi- 
nation that irapsKrog is merely a bad translation 

of peractllS, and iis.pip.va iraadiv rwv £K/cXt?o-iwv of 

CUR AM omnium ecclesiarumf 7ra<rwv fK/cXwiwv is 
elliptically put for vn-sp ir. c. and the Latin version 
of the words should be, as Beza makes it, Solli- 
citudo DE omnibus ecclesiis. The author of 
such criticisms as these betrays indeed so sin- 
gular an unacquaintance with the Greek and 
Latin languages, that, when he again affects to 
take the lead in questions of this sort, a modest 
enquirer may be emboldened to ask him what 
are his pretensions ? 

Tlrepvyiov. Porticum™. (p. 231.) " There is no 
word," it is true, " on the meaning of which 
commentators are more at variance than Trrs^vytov." 
But this circumstance does not prove that this is 
not the genuine* expression of the Evangelist ; 
because it was to be expected that in these, as in 



m 



Matt. iv. 5. Luke iv. 9. 



174 

all other writings of equal antiquity,' some words 
should occur which all the resources of learning 
would be incompetent so to explain as to pro- 
duce unanimous acquiescence. Let it be granted, 
if it must be so, that the question must be given 
up in despair ; that we know nothing with cer- 
tainty respecting it. I do not say that we are 
reduced, even in the case before us, to such an 
extremity ; quite the contrary : but even if it 
were so, we should be neither constrained nor 
inclined to take refuge in the proposed hypothe- 
sis. The author ofthat hypothesis must know 
that there is no Greek writing whatever in which 
single words do not occur, on the meaning of 
which as wide a division of opinions has pre- 
vailed as even wrepvyiov has excited : and would 
he persuade us that, in every such instance, we 
must extricate ourselves from an admitted diffi- 
culty by the intervention of such a scheme as 
that which is proposed in the case of the Evan- 
gelists ? Suppose that we were so uncertain as 
to the true meaning of this word, and so unable 
to express it by an equivalent English term, that 
we were to translate the passage in which it 
occurs, " Then the devil taketh him into the 
holy city and setteth him upon the Pterugium of 
the Temple." This would be quite sufficient to 
ensure our understanding the material facts of 
the narration; because the context would clearly 
shew that some elevated external point of the 



175 

Temple was designed ; but whether a wing, a 
portico, or a battlement were meant, would be a 
mere question of curiosity, the solution of which 
could not be a matter of great importance. At 
the same time this ought not to discourage our 
attempting to determine what is meant by the 
pterugium ; and, if I may venture to add to the 
numerous opinions already recorded, the most 
satisfactory explanation seems to me to be de- 
rivable from the Septuagint. The word irrzpvyiov 
is used by the LXX as corresponding with the 
Hebrew spa : the signification of which is shewn, 
I think, from many passages, to be the extreme 
edge or border of any thing, specially of a garment. 
The command of God to the people of Israel n 

Was 7roir]ffaTU)(Tav tavroig KpaoiTzda titi to. 7rT?pvyia twv 
ifiaTKov avTO)v, ug Tag yeveag aurwv. Kai €7rwi;(T£r£ £7ri ra 
Kpa(T7rz$a tiov irrepvyiajv /cXaxr^ua vclkivzlvov. /cat taraivjunv 

£v toiq Kpa<nr£$oig. Bid them make them fringes on 
the borders of their garments, throughout their 
generations, and that they put upon the fringes of the 
borders a ribband of blue ; and it shall be unto you 
for a fringe, or rather upon the fringe: " added to 
it*' as Patrick (in loc.) remarks, " to make it the 
more noted ; being of a distinct colour from, the 
fringe, which was of the same colour with the 
garment." The fringe indeed, as the same com- 
mentator observes, " seems to have been only 

u Num. xv. 88. 
11 



176 



threads left at the end of the web unwoven/' 

The edge of the garment was therefore traced out 

by a border of a different colour extending along 

it ; and is here called to wrepvyiov. This is the 

view which our translators have taken of the 

passage, and I cannot but think that their version, 

given above, is more correct than the Vulgate 

" Faciant sibi fimbrias per angulos pattiorum" 

This interpretation is certainly supported by the 

high authority of Salmasius, who says " ywviag, 

id est angulos vestium, iidem Grceci etiam impvyag 

appellabant et impa ° ;" and again, " Angulos autem 

pallii ywviaq et 7rTipvyag appellari Greece in super io- 

ribus observavimus. Sic quatuor angulos reaaapa 

irrepvyia pallio scribarum tribuit Epiphanius Hceres 

XV. </>rj<ri yap on 7rXaruv£T£ ra (j>v\aKTt)pia, Kai ra 
KpaaTTtSa TU)v [fxartu)v vfiuyv ^icyaXvvfre. poiGKsq yap 
rivaq £tti ra Tfffaraoa 7rrepvyia rov rp&wvog skcujtoq 

£lV£Vj *£ aVT8 T8 aTYIjJLQVOQ KaTa$Z$£fJL£V8Q ev to yjpovu 
£V£KpaT£V£TO, 1} TTap^ZViaV IJffJCEEV. — Ttaaapa TTTtpvyia 

rp&b)voQ, sunt quatuor anguli, ex quibus pende- 
bant poiffKoi, id est globuli Punicorum malorum 
specie*." Such is the decision of this con- 
summate scholar ; buWt is to be lamented that 
he offers no reasons in support of his very 
positive conclusion" 1 . There are, I cannot help 

° Ad. Tertull. de Pallio. p. 111. 
p Ibid. p. 472. 

q He says indeed in another part of this volume, " 7rrepvyag 
proprie vocabant Grseci angulos illos, qui circa imum vestis, ab 



177 

thinking, grounds for questioning whether irt&» 
pvyiaj in the passage of Epiphanius, do not 
rather mean the borders of the garment, as the 
equivalent Hebrew word is rendered in our 
public version. The scribes, not content with a 
simple fringe, augmented the width of that part 
of their dress by appending to it little balls, or 
knobs, attached to the warp of the stuff whereof 
the garment was made. It would therefore seem 
that the irrzpvyia, upon which these balls were 
placed, could not be the angles of the garment : 
because the fringe, along the whole course of 
which this account, compared with Patrick's, 
proves that they extended, was not confined to 
the angles, but ran along the entire hem or border* 
Hesychius plainly intimates that the impv^q and 
the KpavinSa were co- extensive ; and the former 
word could therefore not be designed to denote 
only the angular points of a four-sided cloak. 
His words, quoted by Salmasius, are irrepvyeg, 

evSwrypiQ, ra TnjSaAia* /ecu /mtpog yvrwvoq, ra wept ra 

KpatrweSa. We find accordingly that the LXX 
translate cpD, sometimes by KpaweSov, at others 

alarum similitudine. Aperti siquidem et divisi in medio vesti- 
menti partes, ab utroque latere fluitantes, avium alas plane 
referunt." DePall. p. 112. So Patrick on Num. xv. 88. "as 
it is in the Hebrew, in the wings of their garments." It is how- 
ever an obvious remark that the fluttering of the fringes which 
surrounded the borders renders the name of wings no less appro- 
priate to those parts of the garment than to the angles or corners, 

1ST 



178 

by TTTspvyiov : as if they considered them nearly 
equivalent terms r . Admitting therefore the cor- 
rectness of Fischer's decision that in the passage 
Ruth iii. 9. and in some others, the meaning of 
iTTtpvyiov is " non orce, extremitates vestis, sed 
ipsum pallium* " This synechdochical applica- 
tion of the word in particular instances furnishes 
no proof that in other cases, and in a more 
proper sense, it does not bear the meaning I 
attribute to it ; namely, the border, as marked out 
upon, and distinguished from the garment itself. 
That this is its proper signification is farther 
confirmed by the circumstance that cpD, in other 
parts of the Septuagint, is translated aicpov : as 
Hagg. ii. 13. according to some MSS. the reading 
of 1 Sam. xxiv. 5. 6. 12. is to aicpov tt\q $nr\6i§oqi 
according to others to irTzpvyiov tvq $nr\oi$og : and 
in all these passages our English version, with 
apparent correctness, has " the skirt of his gar- 
ment" or " robe." According to Hesychius 

wrtpvyia and aKpa are the same : Trrspvyia, tcl aicpa 

Ttov t/xanwv. upon which Salmasius, adhering to 
his own interpretation, observes, " ra aKpa sunt 
yuviai," (p. 112.) But this is confuted by Hesy- 
chius himself, who says, " KpatnnSa, tu £v tw aKpy T8 

IpaTis KiK\h><TjjL£va pafifiaTa :" from which it evidently 
appears that he did not consider to aKpov to mean 

r Conf. Deut. xxii. 12. Zech. viii, 23. Num. xv< 38. 1 Sam. 
xv. 27. 

* Profas. p. 108. 



179- 

the angle or corner of a garment, but the hem or 
border to which the fringe was attached. It 
tends to establish the same conclusion that the 
same Hebrew word J")?spO, signifying the extremi- 
ties of the earth, or the boundary of the visible 
horizon * is rendered Trrepvyuyv. 

We are therefore, I think, justified in con- 
cluding that the word irrepvytov means a border or 
boundary marked out and defined : as the hem of 
the Jewish garment was by the differently- 
coloured ribband which ran along it. Now, that 
relation which such a border has to the garment, 
the outer wall, which ran as a boundary round the 
whole mount of the house, may be supposed to 
bear to the area or plot of ground which it en- 
closed, and on which the Temple stood". On 

1 Job xxxvii. 3. xxxviii. 13. 

" This resemblance will be rendered more evident by the 
inspection of a plan of the Temple and its surrounding courts, 
in piano. See such a ground plan in D'Oylys andMant's Bible : 
1 Kings vi. Michaelis says, " even Strabo thought it ne- 
cessary to explain what was signified by irrepa when applied to 
the Egyptian temples. Lib. xvii. p. 1159." (Almeloveen's edition.) 
Upon this his very learned commentator remarks, " It appears 
from Strabo's description of the izrtpa of the Egyptian temples 
that they were nothing more than two high walls, which formed 
a kind of inclosure or court before the temple itself. The dif- 
ficulty consists not in nrepov but in irrspvywv, for Wetstein, in 
his note to Matthew iv. 5. has produced a very sufficient num- 
ber of examples, where nrtpov and irrtpvl are applied to a build- 
ing ; but if we except the example from Eusebius which had 

N 2 



180 

account of this resemblance the word impvyiov 
may have been used to designate that boundary; 
and the words of St. Matthew may be thus ren- 
dered. " Then the devil taketh him up into the 
holy city, and setteth him on the outer wall of the 
holy place \" The eastern side of this boundary 
wall may be considered as the scene of this 
temptation of our Lord ; and the description of 
it in Josephus y affords a very satisfactory com- 
ment on the words of Satan, " cast thyself down;" 
for he assures us that the descent from thence 
into the valley beneath, was so sudden and pre- 
cipitous as to occasion giddiness in those who 
looked down. This particular spot has indeed 
been suggested by previous writers ; but they in 
general suppose that some pinnacle or battlement 
raised above the wall, or some wing projecting 

been borrowed from the Greek Testament, no instance has been 
found where the diminutive irrepvyiov is applied to a building." 
Marsh' s Michaelis, Vol. I. pp. 144- — 420. It must however be 
noted that the Egyptian temples had only one court surrounding 
them ; and that we must therefore not expect to find both terms, 
irrepov and Trrepvytov, used in heathen authors to describe the 
single boundary within which those temples stood. But the 
Temple at Jerusalem was distinguished from all others by 
having two enclosures around it. If therefore the inner wall 
(surrounding the court of the Israelites) were called, after the 
Egyptian fashion, to 7mpov, the outer wall (surrounding the en- 
tire area) might be called by way of distinction, to irnpvyio v » 

x Matt. iv. 5. 

* Ant. Jud. xv. 14. 



181 

from it, is meant z ; nor do I find any one sug- 
gesting that our Lord was placed on the ivall itself, 
or mentioning the reason which I have assigned 
why that might be called to Trrepvyiov. 

AvaroXr/. Natale*. (p. 233.) " / suspect that 

what the Magi say, aSo/uv avrov rov aoTzpa £v ry 

avaroXy, may have been Natale astrum in the 
Latin text." But let me ask what reason has he 
for suspecting this ? or where is the difficulty of 
the passage as it stands ? Did not the wise men 
come from the east? Could not they in the 
east have beheld the star of Christ hanging over 
Judea? or does not avaroXri " in various other 
passages of the New Testament mean the east ?" 
If these questions cannot but be affirmatively 
answered, what difficulty, I repeat, does the 
original present ? and if no difficulty, what room 
for conjecture ? In the case of the least con- 
siderable of profane authors such a liberty would 
not be tolerated ; and wherefore is the Sacred 
Text to be held unworthy of that safeguard 
against rash innovation which is extended over 
the text of every other writer ? 



z u 



Till an instance can be produced from a Greek writer in 
which -KTigvyiov is applied to a building, and its sense determined, 
it must remain mere conjecture whether the Evangelists in- 
tended to express a wing of the Temple j or only a point or pro- 
minence." Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. I. p. 421. 
* Matt. ii. 2. 



182 

Tzewa. Igne b . (p. 234.) " It seems to me to 
be no other than a corruption of the Latin word 
Igne; quam totum corpus tuum eat in yccwav (ig- 
nem)." The resemblance between the Greek 
and Latin words is so very slight as to be scarcely 
perceptible, even when pointed out. But has 
the author considered what will be the effect 
of applying his conjecture in other passages 
in which yeewa occurs ? What kind of sense, 
for instance, does the substitution of ignis 
introduce into our Lord's rebuke of the Phari- 
sees? "Ye compass sea and land to make 
one proselyte, and, when he is made, ye make 
him tenfold more the child of fire than your- 
selves ." Can any one seriously maintain that 
this is more satisfactory than those F innumera- 
ble dissertations about the valley of Hinnom ?" 
or that the hypothesis, when applied to the 
words of our Lord, does not so miserably fail as 
to prove that it cannot be true ? 

ManfjHDvaq. Nummos d . (p. 234.) " The origi- 
nal seems to have been nummos caducos, and, this 
phrase not being familiar to the translator, he 
converted it, by a kind of chime, into fiafifxajvag 
rns adiKiag" (p. 223.) Concerning the proba- 
bility of this conversion let others judge. To 
me, the passage, as it stands in the Greek, seems 

b Matt. v. 22. c Matt, xxiii. 15. 

d Luke xvi. 9. 



183 

to furnish an unexceptionable meaning ; and the 
derivation of the principal word in it is reason- 
able and easy. " Vox pDD, ambage remota, 
Ebrseae linguae filiabus in usu est. Certe Chal- 
daice est Lucrum; Gen. xxvi. 36. et alibi. Ita et 
Punice, uti Augustinus, Lib. II. de sermone Dom : 
in monte; et Serm. xxx. De verbis Dom: ait 
Mammona apud Ebreeos Divitice appellantur. 
Congruit et Punicum nomen: nam Lucrum Punice 
Mamon dicitur 6 ." With respect to the other 
part of the conversion, namely of caducus into 
aSiKOQ, I will only ask how it came to pass that a 
translator, capable of such a blunder, should in 
the eighth verse of this chapter have used aSucta, 
and, in the tenth, aSi/coc twice, in such a manner 
that the supposition of their having been, in these 
instances, derived from caducus cannot be ad- 
mitted without converting the entire passage into 
unmeaning absurdity. 

Xpovog. Hornus f . (p. 236.) "'On y^povog ovk 
sarai en, that before the end of a year the con- 
summation would take place." How the author 
deduces this sense from the words which he 
quotes, I do not stay to enquire. I notice this 
conjecture only to have an opportunity of ob- 
serving, that the translation of this passage, even 



c Pfelffer Dubia Vexata Ss, recognita, p, 894. 
f Rev. x. 6. 

8 



184 

in our authorized version, appears to be suscep- 
tible of improvement. " The angel, which I 
saw stand upon the sea, and upon the earth, 
lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him 
that liveth for ever and ever — that there should 
be time no longer ; but in the days of the voice 
of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to 
sound, the mystery of God should be finished." 
This passage I would translate in a different 
manner, and will give a reason why it should 
stand thus: l f The angel, which I saw stand 
upon the sea, and upon the land, lifted up his 
hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth 
for ever and ever — that the time shall not be yet, 
but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel; 
when he shall begin to sound, and (when) the mys- 
tery of God shall be accomplished." This is not 
only more literal, as a comparison of the Greek 
will shew ; but, by translating y^povoq g ovk co-rac en, 
the time shall not be yet, the reference is more 
clearly made to the words of our Lord, out™ 
wren to tsXoq, the end shall not be yet h ." Indeed, 
if this were the place for such a discussion, it 
might, I think, be satisfactorily shewn, that the 
predictions of our Lord, recorded by the first 

g Xpovog, without the article prefixed, denoting a fixed and de- 
finite time, is used in like manner. " It is not for you to know 
the times" &c. Acts i. 7. 

h Matt. xxiv. 6. and Markxiii. 7. 



185 

three Evangelists, primarily relating to, and pri* 
marily accomplished in, the overthrow of Jeru- 
salem, have a farther and prospective view to the 
overthrow of that antichristian power which 
shall arise in the last days : in other words that, 
of Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. 2 Thess. ii. 
of some of the prophecies of Daniel, and the 
greater part of the book of Revelation, the sub- 
ject is one and the same. 

'Ayialay. Sanctifico. Qu. for Sancio \ (p. 254.) 
This is one of the instances in which through 
" mistakes from abbreviations, faded letters, 
&c." one word, in the supposed Latin text, has 
been mistaken for another, and the Greek tran- 
slation which we possess has suffered accord- 
ingly. The passage in question then is sup- 
posed to have correctly stood thus, " Infidelis 
enim maritus sancitur uxori; et uxor infidelis 
sancitur marito, &c." " The unbelieving hus- 
band is legally •plighted to the wife ; and the un- 
believing wife is legally plighted to the husband ; 
else were your children bastards, but now are 
they legitimate''' The translator hereof, it is 
imagined, mistaking sancitur for sanctificatur, 
made use of the word yyiaaTai, to the detriment 
of the sense of the passage. Upon the interpre- 
tation of the concluding passage in the above 
quotation, it may be remarked k , that the words 

1 1 Cor. vii. 14. k See Whitby in loc. 



186 

by which bastards, and legitimate children would 
be properly expressed in Greek, are vo0oi and 
•yvtjffioi. The designation 'A-ytoi is applied by St. 
Paul to those who are actually, or potentially, 
within the terms of the Christian covenant ; and 
who are thereby distinguished from others, (aica- 
Saproig) who enjoyed not that privilege. The re- 
mainder of "this difficult text" must be ex- 
plained by reference to the particular state of 
things to which the passage relates. In the 
early ages of Christianity it frequently happened 
that a believer and an unbeliever were united in 
marriage ; and, scruples being entertained as to 
the lawfulness of such marriage ab initio, and 
of continued cohabitation, the direction of the 
Apostle is applied for as to the proper mode of 
proceeding. His reply is in substance, " The 
children of this marriage are not unholy, or with- 
out the covenant, like those who are the fruit of 
marriages where both parties are unbelievers, but 
are admissible to the right of baptism 1 . Now 
this could not be unless the unbelieving parent, 
as far as the purposes of matrimony, and those 
alone, were concerned, were sanctified, or ad- 
mitted to a participation in Christian privileges, 
by the believing." In the words of Chrysostom, 

1 " Sancti sunt, et dicuntur liberi quod, ex communi infan- 
tum sorte exempti, in statu gratice versentur." Venema. Dissert. 
Sacr, Lib. III. c. ix. 



187 



" viko. ?J /caSaporrjc. rijc. yvvaiKOQ tt\v aKa$ap<nav tov 
avdpOQ* Kai viko. rj tcaSapOTriq tov ttigtov avSpog 7raXiv 
to aicaSaQTOv Tr\q cltcigtov yvvaiKog I through the 

mercy of God the designation of the offspring is 
taken from the better parent; in consideration 
of whose belief, the unbelief of the other is not 
suffered unfavourably to influence the condition 
of the offspring 1 ". "Wherefore," he proceeds, 
" so long as each is willing to continue, let 
him not put her away, — let her not leave 
him n ." 

AX^tta. Veritas . Qu. for Virtus, (p. 250.) In 
an immediate sense, and with reference to the 
mutual intercourse of men, truth, or the con- 
formity of words to the existing state of things, 
is opposed to falsehood, which is the absence of 
such conformity. In the economy of revelation, 
therefore, the Gospel itself is called truth on 
account of its conformity with the existing state 
of things in the spiritual world ; inasmuch as it 

m " Liberi ex conjugio cum infideli non sunt impuri ; infidelis 
non sequuntur sortem, sed sunt sancti, secundum meliorem pa- 
rentem judicandi, quemadmodum bonitas Dei, qua in meliorem 
inclinatur partem, evinciVet ex fidelis relatione ad Christum, 
qui parentem cum semine sibi asserit, manifeste colligitur." 
Ibid. cxiv. 

n See on this whole subject, C homier. Panstratia Cathol. 
Vol. IV. Lib. 5. cap. x. sect. 46, et seq. 1 Cor. vii. 15, &c. 

° 1 Cor. xiii. 6. 



188 

declares to us the true God, the duties which 
we owe to him, and the mode of worshipping 
him acceptably in spirit and in truth. The Gos- 
pel is, upon all these points, directly opposed to 
every other system which bears the name of re- 
ligion ; because all these give us false views of 
God and of our duty to him. When, therefore, 
it is said in Palseoromaica (p. 251.) that, in the 
" eulogy on charity p , Rejoiceth not in INIQUITY, 
but rejoiceth in the TRUTH, a\r$ua TRUTH is 
opposed to aSi/eea INIQUITY,'' and it is inferred 
that, to preserve the force of the contrast, the 
original must have been not VERITATE but 
VIRTUTE, " rejoiceth not in INIQUITY, but 
rejoiceth in VIRTUE," the error is this ; the 
word truth is understood, if not in a false, in too 
circumscribed a sense : aXrfitia is supposed here, 
and in similar passages, to intend only that 
quality which among men is opposed to the neg- 
lect of veracity ; whereas the truth in which 
charity rejoices is collective truth ; as it forms the 
entire subject of revelation, and is opposed not 
to falsehood singly, but to all those qualities 
which are comprehended under the generic name 
of aSi/aa or unrighteousness. The correction pro- 
posed in Palseoromaica in fact amounts to no- 
thing ; for in the scriptural sense truth and virtue 

p 1 Cor. xiii. 6. 



189 



are one q ; and therefore truth stands naturally 
and properly opposed to ever]) deviation from 
virtue ; or, in the Apostle's language, to " evil ' 
and " iniquity" 

Avaarpocpri. Conversio. Qu. for Conversation 
This word is used in the sense of conversation by 
Polybius 5 ; also 2 Mace. v. 8. Schleusner 1 ob- 
serves, " Cseterum etiam grsecos scriptores hanc 
vocem ita usurpasse ut omnem vitce instituendce, et 
cum aliis hominibus vivendi rationem, familiaritatem 
adeo et conversationem significaret, multis docuit." 
Wesseling. in Diatribe de Judceorum Archontibus, 
c. ii. p. 14. To this work I have no means of re- 
ferring ; but it was at least incumbent on the 
author of Palaeoromaica to shew, that the au- 
thorities cited by Wesseling do not prove his 
assertion, as Schleusner appears to think they 
do. The mere inspection of the Epistles of St. 
Peter is sufficient to prove the utter impossibility 
of the assumption, that conversatio has been mis- 
taken for conversio. If, in the Latin exemplar, a 

q Such is the opinion of the ethic poet : 

" Truth and good are one ; 
And beauty dwells in them, and they in her :" 

So therefore does virtue, which is the beauty of the moral uni- 
verse ; and perhaps the only form acceptable to Him who 
" seeth not as man seeth, but looketh on the heart." 

r 1 Pet. iii. 1. s Vid. Wetstein in loc. 

* Lex. A r . T. s. v. 



190 

mark of abbreviation unnoticed, or the oblite- 
ration of certain letters in the copy, can be sup- 
posed in one instance to have given rise to such 
an error, this would be carrying conjecture to 
the very limits of probability. But when we are 
required to admit that, if this source of error 
prevailed in one instance, it must have prevailed 
six times in the first Epistle of St. Peter, and 
twice in the second ; once in the Epistle of St. 
James, and four times in those of St. Paul, when 
we find that at least three separate translators 
must have fallen thirteen times, in all, into the 
same error of mistaking conversatio for conversio, 
while the words converto and conversio, when 
they do occur, are rendered by other Greek 
words, and not by ava<rrpE$a> and avaarpofai, we 
have a glimpse of the difficulties in which the 
New Testament will be involved by the admis- 
sion of this very simple and unperplexed hypo- 
thesis. 

<bu)vriv. Vocem. Qu. for Vocantem*. (p. 257.) 
The objection here is, that a voice cannot be 
seen. But pXeww, and words of similar import, 
do not necessarily signify seeing in a corporeal 
sense. They are applied, by writers, sacred 
and profane, to objects which cannot be, any 
more than a voice, the objects of vision. Thus 
Matt. xiv. 30. " j3Xf7ro>v & rov ux^ov ANE- 

H Rev. i. 12. 



191 
MON." Similarly Appian x " o>c & km nNEYMA 

zSeaaavTO. 

TivuffKU). Nosco. Qu. for Agnosco y . The true 
sense of this passage is that which our Esta- 
blished Version gives, " that which 1 do I allcnv 
not;" and the use of -yivwtr/cw, with this signification, 
has been so often and so satisfactorily defended, 
that it is unnecessary here to repeat the autho- 
rities for it. In the passage, John i. 10. " o kog- 
fxoq avrov ovk £yva>," I must still doubt, notwith- 
standing the authority of Valckenaer, whether 
ipsum non agnovit would correctly represent the 
Apostle's meaning. There is a wide and ob- 
vious distinction between acknowledging a per- 
son in a particular character, and knowing in 
what the attributes of that character consist, and 
in what the person's claim to it is founded. 
With respect to our Lord the unbelieving world 
was deficient in both these respects. Not only 
did it not acknowledge him in the character of 
Messiah ; but (and this is the point to which St. 
John refers) they were disabled by prejudice 
from correctly apprehending what characteristics 
the Messiah should be expected to display ; and 
from discerning how far those characteristics 
were exhibited in Jesus of Nazareth. To make 
their acknowledgment of him worth any thing, 
there was a previous qualification necessary; 

* Bell. Alex. Annib. p, 574. 
y Rom. vii, 15. 



»> 



?? 



192 

that they should know him, or correctly appre- 
ciate his character and claims. This distinction 
is clearly traced by our Lord himself. " It is 
my Father that glorifieth me, of whom ye say, 
or acknowledge, " that he is your God. Yet, 
he continues, this acknowledgment of him in 
that character is unavailing, because " ye have 
not known him 2 ;" or had any right perception of 
his nature and attributes. So, " If ye had 
known me, ye would have known my Father 
also*;" where the introduction of agnosco for 
nosco, or of " if ye had acknowledged me, ye would 
have acknowledged my Father also ;" would make 
their acknowledgment of the Father, as their 
God, dependent on their acknowledgment of 
the Son as their Messiah : plainly contrary to 
the fact. 

Epyov. Factum. Qu. for Facinus b . (p. 164.) 
Whether or no " committing incest can properly be 
termed a work ;" whether " facinus is quite ap- 
propriate to the occasion," and whether " the 
etymological translator confounded this with 
factum" are questions which the author of Palseo- 
romaica may be left to decide in his own way. 
It is more to our purpose to shew, that in this 
application of cp-yov there is nothing but may be 
justified by adequate authority. One quotation 

* John viii. 54. a John xiv. 7, 

b 1 Cor. v. 2. 



1&3 

may suffice. " '&c 8e Pwjuaioi Kai qvtoi Kapyji$ovioi 
vofiiCovai, AtSw yvvri Tvpia, tjg tov av§pa Kare/ccwve 
TlvyiuaXi(i)v k<u to EPrON anzKpvips.v e . 

This application of the word cpyov, to denote 
murder, might alone suffice to vindicate the Apos- 
tle's use of it ; but it may be farther observed that, 
in a very marked instance, it is employed by 
Euripides to express that very crime which St. 
Paul has in view : mte TYNAIKA nva ts IIATPOS 
«X«v. Alluding to her own incestuous passion 
for Hippolytus, Phaedra says, 

" to & EPrON ydy ti\v voaov te $v<tK\ta 4 " 

There cannot indeed be a finer commentary 
on the words of the Apostle, Toiavrn nopyua frig 
sh £v toiq tSveaiv ONOMAZETAI, than is furnished 
by the management of the entire plot, as well as 
of particular scenes, in this tragedy. The wri- 
tings of antiquity contain not a more striking 
representation than that which is here presented 
of Phaedra's struggle against so odious a passion, 
and of the shame and confusion with which she 
shrinks back from any approach towards an 
avowal of it. Amidst the general horror, which 
the discovery of it excites, one thing is very 
strongly marked ; namely, that it was, in the 
general estimation, too detestable to be spoken of, 

c Appian. Lib. Carth. p. 13. ed. Car, Steph* 
* Eurip. Hippol. Coronif. 410. 



194 

Thus Phsedra obstinately refuses to name the 
cause of her misery, and when at length her 
insidious confidant is led to mention Hippolytus, 
she exclaims 



a 



as rad\ bk eps, k\veiq." 



as if it were some relief of her wretchedness, and 
some extenuation of her guilt, that she had not 
been reduced to name the malady which con- 
sumed her, or the unconscious author of her 
sufferings, avm^ra nabta they are termed by the 
chorus ; " sufferings which ought not to be heard 
of:" as the scholiast well explains it ra pyre aKor\q 
a%ia, ra apprira. From the same feeling, when 
the attendant even hints to the queen the grati- 
fication of her passion as a means of preserving 
her life, the utterance of such a sentiment sus- 
pends in her every other feeling but that of hor- 
ror ; and her reply is 

il (i) deiva \t%ao>' «^i ovytcXyoeig ffTO/xa, 
Kai [irj fieOijffuQ avSrig aiffx^rsg Xoyag ;" 

and Hippolytus, after having listened to the re- 
lation of the Nurse, exclaims 

" o>g km av y r\\niv IIATPOS, o> kclkov Kapa, 
AEKTPQN aOiKTiov qXStg eig avvaXXayag. 
'a 'ya> pvroig vaafioiaiv eZoixopZofjiai, 
ug QTA kXvZ,(ov nag av av ur\v icaicog, 
bg ad', AKOYSAS ToiaS', ayvtvuv doKb) f 

I put it now to the author of Palaeoromaica 
whether St. Paul has not given a most accurate 



195 

description of the feelings of the Gentile world 
upon this subject; and whether in his remarks 
about f acinus and nefandum he himself does not 
display an ignorance which in another he would 
regard as no less than shameful ? 

QaXaaaa. Mare. Qu.for Thessalia 9 . (p. 254.) That 
any person should translate Thessalia by OaXaaaa 
is utterly inconceivable. That a copyist may 
have written Qa\a<j<sa for QeaaaXia is by many de- 
grees nearer to the regions of probability ; and 
such an error once introduced might naturally 
and easily be propagated through an entire class 
of MSS. If then it were even necessary, in order 
to maintain the congruity of the narrative, to read 
Qe<r<ra\ia and not BaXasaa, this mode of accounting 
for the disappearance of the former word would 
be preferable to that which supposes it to have 
arisen from mistranslation. I must however 
confess my inability to discern the validity of the 
reasons assigned by Markland, in support of the 
reading 8e<r<raAia. The passage as it stands in the 

received text, 7ropevea9ai wc €7rt tyjv 9a\aaaav to 

go towards the sea, is in perfect congruity with 
the context ; " They that conducted Paul brought 
him unto Athens" Now although, if he went to 
Athens by land, he would pass through Thessaly, 
yet, as the object of the brethren was to place 
the Apostle as soon as possible, beyond the reach 

* Acts xvii. 14. 

o 2 



196 

of the Jews, whose persevering enmity was 
shewn by their pursuit of him to Beroea, it seems 
more reasonable to suppose that they would 
conduct him to the nearest seaport ; in order that 
he might be conveyed to Athens, or at least part 
of the way thither, as he had come from Troas, 
(xvi. 11.) on ship-board f . 

KcSpwv. Cedrorum Qu. for Cedron*. That a 
careless copyist should commit such an error as 
that of writing rwv K&pwv for rov /ccopwv can sur- 
prise no one ; and the same error might, like 
that noticed in the preceding instance, creep into a 
great number of copies. That we possess so many 
as three MSS. which preserve the genuine reading 

* The following is Hoogeven's explanation of the passage. 

" Tov Havkov e%a7TtiTTti\av bt. adeXtpoi iroptveaOai a>£ «7rt Sakaooav. 
Paulum miserunt f retires, ut prqficisceretur versus mare; sive, 
quasi ad mare, Nempe Judaei Thessalonicenses, odio evangelii 
concitati, Berhoeam tendentes Paullum persequebantur ; quare 
fideles eum comitabantur, simulantes iter per mare: ideo que, 
urbe egressi, tendebant non ad, sed versus mare, hoc est ad or- 
tum, versus sinum Thermaicum, ut insidiantes hostes eluderent, 
ita ut, longius ab urbe remoti, flecterent iter versus Thessaliam." 
Doctrin. Parti. C. LYII. Sect. 8. P. 1210. There does not 
appear however to be any necessity for this supposition that the 
brethren went towards the sea, as a feint to cover their real de- 
sign of making thejourneybyland. q s ««, in the examples from 
Arrian immediately preceding the above extract, evidently de- 
notes not only a progress towards, but an actual arrival at the 
positions indicated. In either view of the subject the objection 
of Markland revived in Palaeoromaica falls to the ground. 
9 John xviii. 1. 



197 

is an exemplification of the manner in which the 
authentic sacred text has been preserved and 
may be recovered; the aberrations of some of 
the witnesses being in every case counterbalanced 
by the greater correctness of a sufficient number 
of others. 

OefitXiov. Fundamentum Qu. for Fundum\ (p. 91.) 
The objection here is the incongruity of the 
metaphor. " What is the meaning of treasuring 
up a foundation!" " The word in that Latin 
copy from which our Elzevir Greek appears to 
have been derived, seems to have been Fundum" 
and " the passage in our version therefore ought 
not to be ' laying up in store for themselves a good 
foundation ;' but ' laying up in store for themselves 
a good fund.' " The meaning of the Apostle is 
plain enough : " charge them who are rich in this 
world," to give, by their readiness to distribute, 
so clear a proof of their faith in Christ, that on 
Him, as on an immoveable foundation, they may 
build their hope of eternal life. But wherefore 
speak of laying up a foundation ? Because their 
title to build on such a basis was to be acquired, 
not instantaneously or by any single act, but by 
the daily, hourly, persevering exhibition of cha- 
ritable affections ; as, among the children of this 
world, treasure is amassed by laying up conti- 

h 1 Tim. vi. 19. 



. 198 

nually and separately one piece of money after 
another. St. Paul's intention was to shew what 
a Christian ought to do, and how it was to be 
done ; and when in his rapid style he unites 
these two points of instruction in a single sen- 
tence, he unites also the metaphors by which 
each, separately, was well and forcibly expressed ; 
and thus produces " an incoherent figure." And 
is this so uncommon a case ? "Multi," says Quinti- 
lian " cum initium a tempestate sumpserunt, incen- 
dio aut ruina finiunt 1 ," This is a fault to which the 
fervid and energetic character of St. Paul peculiarly 
exposed him in writing; and another instance of it, 
an instance which I do not see how any supposi- 
tion of a Latin original can remove, is exhibited k 

in the words o juevtoi ffrepeog Of fiikiog T8 0*8 iar tike eywv 

rriv a^payiBa tuvtyiv. Now it may be said in correct 
language concerning a foundation that it stands 
firm or sure; yet to speak of the seal of a founda- 
tion, and to intimate that its firmness or stability 
arises from its bearing such a seal, although the 
meaning be perfectly evident, does not appear to 
be a more correct style of figurative expression 
than that which exists in the phrase objected to, 
" laying up a good foundation'' If then St. Paul 
in this latter instance have employed an incohe- 
rent figure, upon what grounds can a similar 

* InstituL Or, Lib. VIII. c. 6. § 2. 
k % Tim. ii. 19. 



199 

blemish in the former case be adduced in proof 
that the phrase is not his \ 

'Yiog rj j3sc. Films autBos Qu. for OvisautBos m . 
(p. 376.) " It appears to me that the original 
had been OVIS, and this, by a common meta- 
thesis, had been read YI02 by the translator." 
The reading of the received text is well known 
to be ovoq 7? j3sc, but on what authority this rests I 
cannot find. The ancient MSS. are all against 
it ; and it seems to have been, as Mill remarks n , 
a conjectural reading introduced to obviate the 
harshness of the combination " whose Son, or 
whose CXr." It seems desirable however to ob- 
viate this harshness, if it be possible, without 
such a deviation from MS. authority as the 
reading ovog entails. Although the present read- 
ing of the most ancient MSS. be vloq r\ (5og (or in 
more modern orthography viog n j3sc,) it may be 
worth while again to collate the passage to dis- 
cover whether this were the original reading ; 

1 Attempts have been made to remove the incongruity in both 
instances. Hammond (on 1 Tim. vi. 19.) attempts to shew that 
Qsfiikiov may signify a note, bond, or obligation, which may be 
laid up, and bear a seal; and M c 'Knight that a^payig may de- 
note an inscription such as may be graven on a foundation. 
Their arguments however are not convincing ; nor can I think 
such explanations necessary. It is however plain that if Ham- 
mond's opinion be correct, the inconsistent figure and the objec- 
tion derived from it, will vanish together. 

m Luke xiv. 5. n Proleg. xliv. 



200 

whether, in any MS. written without intervals 
between the words, there appear any lacuna 
between the <r at the end of viog and the following 
letter y : in which space the syllable av may have 
once stood, although by age or accident it be 
now expunged . In other words I conceive it 

In profane authors, I will take this opportunity of observing, 
very corrupt and apparently hopeless passages may often be 
amended by considering the existing MSS. of those authors' 
writings as having been copied without due care from other 
more ancient MSS. in which certain letters had disappeared 
through age or accident. To exemplify this, let a well known 
passage in the Persce of JEschylus be taken. In Archdeacon 
Blomfield's excellent edition of this play the passage alluded to 
stands thus : 

ti rade, Svvara, Svvara 
Trtpi ra aa Stcvjia 
tiiayouv afiapna 
iraaq ya aa rade 
t%ctp$iv&' at rpurxaXpoi 
vatQ t avatQ r avaig" 

The learned editor's observation hereupon is " Totum locum 
repraesentavi qualis in editione Glasguana exhibetur, quem si 
explicare coner risum doctioribus movebo. Infelices criticorum 
conjecturas memorare supersede©, meam que, et ipsam forte in- 
felicem, in medium proferam." Persce, p. 62. 2nd, Edit. The 
passage may perhaps originally have stood thus : 

" riMIGrare tfwraSra, dvvaZra 
irepSAi ra aa did AXa 
diay'Nouv afiaYpa. 
iraaal ya aa rade 
e£t<}>$ivTai rpic»caX/ioe 
vatg, avaeg avaeg," 

and the letters written in capitals having been obliterated in the 



201 

to be not improbable that the passage in ques- 
tion originally stood thus, nvog viiuv mog ANntog 

€(C <j>pzap sfnrzvuTai, Kai sk ivQswQ avaairacfu avrov ev ry 

'vpepa T8 aa^tars ; Which of you having his infant 
son fallen into a well, will not straightway pull him 
out on the Sabbath day ? av^og is explained by 
the Lexicographers, and by the Scholiast on 
Theocritus, to mean one under twelve years of age ; 

MS. from which our existing copies were taken, the scribe 
formed the remaining letters into Greek words as well as he was 
able ; and thus spread over the passage such obscurity that any 
attempt to explain it in its present form, would, it is justly ob- 
served, only provoke a smile. With the emendation here pro- 
posed the sense becomes clear and suitable. The chorus, by 
desire of Atossa, evoke the shade of Darius, who was called 
GeofirjffTOip or equal to the Gods in counsel, that they might enjoy 
the benefit of his often approved wisdom and experience to in- 
form them of the causes of their late calamities. Concluding 
their adjuration with this Epodos they thus solemnly address 
him; 

" O thou who diedst most lamented by thy friends 
O monarch, most honoured monarch, 
May the Persians, by thy instruction, 
Discern what is obscure, fyc" 

namely, the cause of their late defeat, and the conduct which 
thereupon they ought to pursue, 



" 1TG)£ aV tK TST(s)V ETt 



irpaffffoifitv wg apiara TrtpaucoQ Xewg." 
It is scarcely necessary to observe that the verse 
" Tifiiajrare Svvaara dwaara" 
becomes Asynartetus precisely similar to v. 1083. of the Hecuba, 



202 

which perfectly suits the scope of our Lord's 
question. Dr. Campbell thinks that viog cannot 
be the reading, because " a man possessed of 
even the Pharisaical notions concerning the 
Sabbath might think it in the case supposed 
excusable from natural affection, or even justifi- 
able from paternal duty, to give the necessary 
aid to a child in danger of perishing, and at the 
same time think it inexcusable to transgress the 
commandment for one to whom he is under no 
such obligation." Certainly if it were lawful to 
extricate a dumb animal much more would it be 
so to deliver a human creature on the Sabbath 
day. But though our Lord might have used this 
argument a fortiori, it is not certain that he must 
have done so ; since it was sufficient for him to 
shew that what he had done was equally justifiable 
with that which the Jews themselves did not 
scruple to do. If one of you, he reasons, would 
think it lawful on the Sabbath to deliver a child, 
too young to help itself, from a state in which it 
must otherwise perish, will you not acknowledge 
that it is equally justifiable in me to deliver this 
child of God, who is unable to relieve himself, 
from a state in which, without my assistance, he 
must equally perish ? 

H<j>i£. Sivit ? . (p. 230.) For the following quo- 
tation and remarks, concerning this word, I am 

* Mark i. 34. xi. 16. 



203 

indebted to the same liberal scholar who has 
obliged me with the extracts from Loesner's 
valuable work q . In availing myself for the last 
time of his assistance, I should be inexcusable 
not to mention the name of the Rev. H.J. Todd ; 
whose great stores of learning are never em- 
ployed with so much satisfaction to himself, as 
when they are directed to the support of the 
authority of the Scriptures, and to the main- 
tenance of true religion. — " H</>ie. The author of 
Palseoromaica, in disparagement of this word, 
has given a note from Grotius, with no other re- 
mark appended to it ; thus implying that it was 
not to be impugned, or, at least, that he thought 
so. The passage cited in Palaeoromaica, is in 
p. 230. ' Ovk ?)</>(£. Vox sane povripriQ, 9 says Gro- 
tius, * quam nemo observavit extra Marcum, qui 
infra iterum sic loquitur. Sed neque avaXoyov 
flexionem facile experies r .' 

" Now then observe how completely Grotius 
is answered, which the author of Palaeoromaica 
(I do insist) ought to have known; or else he 
ought not to have so triumphantly introduced the 
mistaken criticism. 

" ' De voce ri$u, quae Marc xi. 16. quoque oc- 
currit, Grotius ad h. 1. dicit, Vox sane, &c. &c. (as 

* Vide supra, for the Remarks from Chr. Fr, Loesneri, Ob* 
serv. on the words /igrfwpi^ojuai and tierpupa. 
T Grotius Annot. in Marc. i. 34. 



204 

before) Paulo post, Si qui Codices haberent r\$iu, 
dubitandum non esset, quin ea lectio esset prcefe- 
renda. — Ne igitur in poster um vocis hujus lectio, 
universali fulta Codicum consensu, solicitetur, 
addo locum, Philonis Legat. ad Caium. p. 1021. 

o jluvovv EAt/cojv (TKopTTLwdeg avSpawodov rov Ai*yv7r- 

rtaicov iov £ic lovSaiovq H4>IEN, Helicon mancipium 
scorpioni simile venerium JEgyptium in Judceos emit- 
tebat. Est verd aoristus sec. ab a^uw, cujus im- 
perfectum i?<f>eu frequentius occurrit 8 / Such is 
Kypke's illustration of ??^ce, and of his own 
position, ' lectio hujus vocis immeritd suspecta 
videtur' " 

Many other instances might be similarly 
treated, but my limits will not permit it. In 
most of the preceding cases, it is impossible, as 
was before observed, to prove a direct negative ; 
but, since it is our antagonist's business to shew 
that the Apostles did not write in Greek, not 
ours to shew that they did not write in Latin, 
as much as the case requires or admits has been 
performed, if it have been proved in all these 
instances that the exceptions taken are un- 
founded; that the peculiarities noticed may be 
explained without resorting to the hypothesis 
that our Greek is a translation or retranslation 
from some antecedent text ; and that conse- 
quently the design of attacking its originality on 

■ Philonis Legat. ad Caium. p. 1021* 



205 

any such ground must be abandoned. There 
are however instances to be met with in Palseo- 
romaica, in which the falsehood of the hypo- 
thesis is reduced to a certainty ; because the 
Latin text which it restores proves to be un- 
meaning and absurd. For instance, airapri\ is 
said to be only the Latin aperte. Be it so : but can 
any man suppose, as this correction would oblige 
us to think, that such a sentence was ever writ- 
ten as " aperte videbitis ccelos apertosT" Can we 
be persuaded that the original text was " divites 
fieri in bonis opibus^V (p. 91.) which would be 
to make the Apostle write as follows, " Charge 
them who are rich in this world — to be rich in 
good riches" Another instance is, where our 
Lord being interrogated by the disciples as to 
the meaning of the parable of the sower, asks 
them, " Ak/hw kcu v/j.uq aaweroi £<tte x ;" The sense 
of this, according to Palseoromaica, is " Our 
Lord asks them, whether they also were deficient 
in acumen ?" (p. 229.) that is, the ignorant transla- 
tor took aKpyv as the representative of acumen, 
merely from its resemblance in sound. Now the 
Latin text from which the Greek was derived, 
supposing its existence for a moment, must have 
been nearly as follows, " Annon vos etiam acu- 
mine destituti estis ?" The translator then, com- 

* John i. 51. u 1 Tim. vi. 18. 

x Matt. xv. 16. 



206 

ing to this passage, either understood the mean- 
ing of acumine or he did not. If he did under- 
stand it, he could not possibly suppose that it 
was adequately translated by aK^v, with which 
he must have been sensible it had no correspon- 
dency, except that which arises from their being 
partially composed of letters of corresponding 
powers. It is plain, therefore, and indeed the 
whole argument of Palseoromaica proceeds upon 
the assumption, that he did not comprehend the 
meaning of acumen ; that he could have no more 
suspicion that it meant understanding, than that 
it meant any thing else, however remote from 
that idea. He therefore renders acumen by uk^v, 
(the word most nearly resembling it in sound, 
which his vocabulary could furnish) and then the 
words remaining to be translated, are M Vos des- 
tituti estis ?" or some of equivalent import. Now 
here is the difficulty. Having disposed of acu- 
men, in a mode which he would not and could 
not have adopted unless he had been ignorant 
that it meant understanding , how comes our trans- 
lator to suspect that the sentence contained any 
thing about understanding or discernment ? How 
could he elicit any such meaning from the word 
destituti ? or how came he to translate Vos destituti 
estis, by vfxug aoweroi sorrs ; which is in fact equi- 
valent to Vos acumine destituti estis ? Surely we 
cannot but think it a piece of uncommon good 
fortune that this word, with the idea which it 



207 

conveys, having been so wrongfully ejected, 
should so speedily be reinstated ; and, as it 
appears, by the merest accident in the world. 
Our author requires us to believe the same thing 
to have happened to his translator, as good 
Bishop Berkeley conceives to have occurred on 
another occasion ; or that, having committed one 
oversight in his original supposition, he was for- 
tunately guilty of a second error which exactly 
countervailed the first, and brought all right 
again y . For myself I could however wish to 
have it explained how the translator, if he did 
not know the true meaning of acumine, was put 
in mind of using a word so proper as aavvtroi; 
if he did know it, can we believe that any one, a 
single step removed from imbecility, would have 
thought of translating it by aK/a^v ? 

We will quit however the writings of St. 
Matthew for those of St. Mark. From these an 
instance is taken on which great stress is laid, 
and great pains have evidently been bestowed ; 
but in which, if I am not mistaken, the writer's 
failure is complete. " This (koivoq) is a Greek 
word signifying common ; but Hellenistically, de- 

y " Therefore the two errors, being equal and contrary, de- 
stroy each other ; the first error of defect being corrected by a 
second of excess. If you had committed only one error, you 
would not have come at a true solution of the problem. But, 
by virtue of a twofold mistake, you arrive, though not at 
science, yet at truth." The Analyst, p. 34. 



208 

filed or impure : in which latter sense it is used 
by no classical Greek writer." (p. 89.) Here 
then is the difficulty ; next comes the solution. 
" Here I think it exceedingly probable that (St.) 
Mark, if he himself wrote in Latin, or one of 
his Latin interpreters, had written ccenosis mani- 
bus, or abbreviated csenis manibus ; and that the 
translator, like William de Moerbeka's above, 
gave both the original and the translation." (p. 
89—90.) I reply that, if St. Mark had designed 
to tell us that the Jews objected to Christ's 
disciples eating with hands literally defiled, or 
covered with mud, he might have used such a 
phrase as ccenosis manibus : we might have 
thought that the Jews were interfering in a mat- 
ter which did not concern them, but should 
hardly have considered their scrupulosity as, in 
itself, absolutely unreasonable. But no such 
idea was ever in the contemplation of St. Mark, 
or of any Jew in all the tribes of Israel. There 
was among them no scruple or question as to the 
absolute cleanness or uncleanness of the hands 
in a literal or physical sense ; it was a ceremo- 
nial defilement which their objection contem- 
plated; and therefore, even when their hands 
were as free from stain as all the waters of Jor- 
dan could make them, they still refused to eat 
without a previous ceremonial ablution ; and, 
after such ablution, for form's sake, they no 
longer hesitated to eat though their hands con- 




209 

tinued in a state far from that of actual cleanli- 
ness. It would, therefore, have been giving a 
false representation, and must have been ob- 
viously contrary to the design of St. Mark, to 
employ a word (ccenosus) which, by every inha- 
bitant of Rome, must have been understood to 
mean, that the Jews objected to lying down 
at their meals with hands literally dirty and 
defiled with mire. In this use of kowoq, on the 
other hand, implying legal impurity, there is 
nothing strange or unprecedented ; since from 
the passages quoted by Parkhurst and Schleus- 
ner, (y. kowoq) it plainly appears that it was cur- 
rent among the Jews in that sense ; and, when 
we call to mind the comparative estimation in 
which in all cases they held themselves and 
other people, we cannot be at a loss to account 
for its acquiring such a sense among them. In 
this sense koivoq was not current among the Gen- 
tiles ; for whose instruction therefore the Evan- 
gelist very naturally adds, tov/ zgtiv avnrroig. 
The case of such an addition here bears no re- 
semblance whatever to that of the circumlocu- 
tory interpretations, annexed to certain words 
in the ancient translation of the Bible, referred 
to in the Diversions of Purley, and from which 
some quotations are given in Palaeoromaica, (p. 
87, 8.) Let us take for instance the passage 2 

■ 2 Cor. ix, 15. 
P 



210 

as it is given in this translation, " thankingis to 
God upon the unenarrable or that may not be told 
gifte of hym." Admitting, what I believe few 
will dispute, that these words, and similar words 
in the other instances, betray a translation from 
the Vulgate " Gratias Deo super inenarrabili 
dono ejus," &c. yet is it most incorrect to affirm, 
that " the case is precisely analogous in the fol- 
lowing phrase of St. Mark, Koivmg x*?* 1 T0VT> 
tanv avnrToiz" That the cases are not analogous 
is plain from the very explanation of those pecu- 
liarities in the early Bible, which is quoted (p. 
86,) from the Diversions of Purley. " These 
words (inenarrabili, amabilia, &c.) and such as 
these, our early authors could not possibly trans- 
late in English but by a periphrasis ;" and for 
the plainest of reasons ; because there were no 
synonymous words in the English language. 
The English translator was therefore obliged 
either to adopt the expedient to which he had 
recourse ; or else he must have suffered such 
words as unenarrable, insolible, amiable, &c. to 
stand without explanation in the text, which 
would then have been no more intelligible to 
most readers of that age, than the original itself 
was. But, if the Latin Gospel of St. Mark had 
come into the hands of a Greek translator, he 
would have been under no such difficulty ; the 
phrase ccenosis manibus might have been literally 
rendered into Greek, because in Greek there is 



211 

an adjective (j3op€opw&/c) of common and approved 
use, which exactly corresponds in signification 
with the Latin ccenosus. Another consideration 
also will shew us the futility of the conjecture, 
that Koivaig is ctenis in disguise. In the passage 
from St. Mark here considered, and in that from 
Heb. x. 29. the substitution of ccenum for koivov, 
preserves something like sense and meaning, 
though not of the clearest description. But be- 
fore the author of Palaeoromaica can be entitled 
to consider his triumph as complete, his hypo- 
thesis must bear the test of application in every 
other passage where the same word occurs. In 
all these instances he must assume, that ccenum or 
ccenosus, of the original Latin, has been convert- 
ed into kowov, or else he must admit that koivov 
itself is there used, and therefore may have been 
used by St. Mark, in the sense of legally impure. 
The next passage then in which koivoq occurs, is 
Acts x. 14 ; and restoring the original Latin of 
St. Luke, or of his translator, it stood thus, 
" Petrus vero dixit Minime Domine ; nunquam 
enim cornedi quidquam ccenosumr So (v. 28,) 
according to this hypothesis St. Peter must have 
said, " Mihi ostendit Deus ne quenquam cceno- 
sum appellem hominem :" and St. Paul*, " Scio 
et persuadeor in Domino Jesu quod nihil cceno- 
sum in seipso." Can any one be so enamoured of 

* Rom. xiv. 14. 

p 2 



212 

a theory as to maintain, that in these instances 
what is obscure in Greek is plain in Latin ? I 
will not believe that it was the author's design 
to hold up the Apostolical writings to ridicule 
and contempt; but would rather persuade my- 
self that, in the transport of a supposed new 
discovery, he overlooked these and other pas- 
sages ; and forgot that, to use the words of a 
very competent judge, " an hypothesis should 
be able to solve every one of those phenomena, or 
appearances, for the solution of which it was 
proposed ; otherwise it cannot be true b ." 

The interpretatory additions of this nature, 
which, though not peculiar to St. Mark, are more 
common in his writings than in those of the other 
Evangelists, form throughout great part of the 
second disquisition, and in many other parts of 
the work an object of peculiar attention ; as sup- 
posed indications of a Latin original. By the 
aid of these it is even attempted to trace still 
higher the origin of St. Mark's Gospel. " This 
Evangelist," it is said, " who appears to have 
derived his Gospel from a Hebrew document, or 
narrative by a Hebrew, seems to have been fond 
of quoting the original for the sake of accuracy.'* 
(p. 87.) As the examination of these quotations 
seems calculated to throw some light on the 

b Bishop Marsh's Defence of the Illustrations of the Origin of 
the Gospels, p. 24. 



213 

origin of St. Mark's Gospel, a question which 
has excited much attention and discussion, and 
is besides connected with the truth or falsehood 
of the Palaeoromaican hypothesis, I shall enter 
into it at some length. 

The promise of our Lord to his disciples, and 
more particularly, we may suppose, to such 
among them as were to write the history of his 
ministry, was, " when he, the Spirit of Truth is 
come, he shall guide you into all truth ;" that is 
into all substantial truth : so as that all the cir- 
cumstances related by every one of them should 
be essentially founded in truth. Their situation 
enabled the Evangelists fully to ascertain what 
really happened, and the influence of the Holy 
Spirit, while it aided them by bringing all things 
to their remembrance, disposed them to observe 
the strictest and most undeviating veracity in all 
which they related. But, this important object 
being secured, it is plain that in the choice of 
expression, and in such subordinate particulars 
as could not affect their accuracy of narration, 
they were left to consult their own judgment, and 
their own notions of expediency. This inde- 
pendency I think we must also extend to the 
form and scope of their narratives, no less than 
to the style ; so that in the original scheme or 
draught which each formed in his own mind, in 
the plan upon which they proceeded in the con- 
struction of their work, in determining, in a word, 



214 

how they would relate the occurrences of our 
Saviour's ministry, they were left to the influence 
of their previously acquired habits of thought. 
Now experience shews that among many spec- 
tators of one event, different circumstances take 
a stronger or weaker hold upon, and excite a 
more or less forcible interest in, different minds ; 
and scarcely any four men can be found who 
shall agree exactly how the story of a transaction, 
in which all were concerned, ought to be related, 
even while they have no disagreement as to any 
one fact whatever. One may think it advisable 
to relate every fact concerning the truth of which 
he considers himself to possess sufficient evi- 
dence ; another, while he agrees with the first 
in a perfect belief of the same facts, may think 
it preferable to relate none but such as he or his 
informant personally witnessed. Let us apply 
this remark to the case of the two Evangelists, 
St. Matthew and St. Mark. The former seems 
to have arranged his plan of narration with a view 
of giving a connected history of our Lord from 
his birth to his final ascension. In conformity 
with this design, he details the circumstances of 
his nativity ; he enters into a very full detail of 
his actions and discourses ; he describes his 
death and burial ; his resurrection, and subse- 
quent intercourse with the disciples, until his 
removal from them into heaven. Having formed 
his plan on so extended a scale, this Evangelist 



215 

is under a necessity of relating many facts which, 
though he had undeniable evidence of them, he 
could not personally have witnessed ; such as the 
birth of our Lord ; the adoration of the Magi ; 
and most of the events recorded in his first two 
chapters. The same may be said of the temp- 
tation in the wilderness ; and of the transfigura- 
tion. But, though the Evangelist was not per- 
sonally concerned in these transactions, he had 
access to such sources of information as could 
supply him undeniable evidence of their occur- 
rence, and he appears to have faithfully availed 
himself of these opportunities. Thus concerning 
the birth and infancy of Christ, it is evident that 
his intelligence was derived from Joseph him- 
self; for we are told (i. 19.) what were the feel- 
ings and intentions of Joseph on discovering the 
pregnancy of his espoused wife ; (ii. 13.) we have 
the very words which the angel spoke to Joseph 
in a dream ; and (22.) are informed what were the 
secret reasons which weighed with him not to 
return into Judea, but to turn aside and dwell 
at Nazareth*. The history of the temptation 
St. Matthew might receive from the lips of our 

c The evident derivation of this part of the history from the 
reputed father of our Lord seems an additional reason for con- 
cluding that the word foxdioq, i. 19. is not designed to be applied 
in a commendatory sense to Joseph as a just man ; but to imply 
that he was a strict observer of the laws of Moses ; as many o£ 
the best commentators explain it. 



216 

Lord himself; and that of the transfiguration from 
one of the three Apostles who were, on that oc- 
casion, present with Jesus on the mount. The 
plan of St. Mark appears to have been differently 
formed from the beginning ; and I believe it will 
appear on examination, that no single circum- 
stance is introduced into his relation which may 
not have fallen under the personal observation of 
him, from whom the materials of his narrative 
were derived, and under whose inspection he 
wrote ; that is, as all history and tradition con- 
cur in assuring us, of St. Peter d . This scheme 

d The only facts to which I have entertained a doubt whe- 
ther this observation could be justly extended, are the baptism 
and ministry of John the Baptist. From John i. 40. it appears 
however that " Andrew, Simon Peter's brother," and therefore 
probably St. Peter, witnessed the appearance of John. As Jesus 
came to him from Gajilee, we have every reason to conclude 
that many of his countrymen did the same ; and as the Baptist 
was sent to prepare the way for Christ in the minds of the peo- 
ple, it is reasonable to think that his first followers and disciples 
would be selected from among those who had partaken of this 
preparatory baptism to repentance. In saying that St. Mark 
wrote from the experience of St. Peter, I do not of course mean to 
affirm that he relates all which St. Peter witnessed ; but only 
that he relates nothing which St. Peter did not witness. In 
the business of our Lord's resurrection it certainly cannot be 
affirmed that he was an eye witness of all the events recorded 
Mark xvi. 1 — 8 ; as he did not on their first visit accompany 
the woman to the sepulchre. But as on their report (See Luke 
xxiv. 12. and John xx. 3 — 6.) he hastened thither immediately, 
and found all things to agree with what they related themselves 



217 

of writing necessarily caused St. Mark to omit 
many particulars related by St. Matthew ; but 
that he did not intend to abridge the Gospel of 
St. Matthew is very evident; for, though St. 
Mark's be the shorter of the two, yet it notices 
some events which St. Matthew does not record, 
and where they have matter in common is gene- 
rally the most full in details. The testimonies 
of ancient writers, affirming that St. Mark's 
Gospel was written by him when at Rome in 
company with St. Peter, have been collected by 
Lardner and Jones, and are considered satisfac- 
tory by almost all subsequent writers upon the 
subject : and an examination of the narrative 
itself confirms their testimony upon this point. 
The peculiar manner in which St. Peter is, as it 
were, passed over, and all particular mention of 
him studiously avoided in the narrative of St. 
Mark, is one instance of this kind ; and many 
others may be traced in the form of the narrative 
itself, and in the mode of expression adopted in 
numerous passages. Thus in the account of the 
transfiguration, while St. Mark follows St. Mat- 
thew in the circumstances, and generally in the 
very words of the narration, he adds, after the 

to have witnessed a few moments before, it can hardly be alleged 
that this Apostle, the informant of St. Mark, had not personal 
knowledge even of those few particulars which he did not actu- 
ally witness. 



218 
ejaculatory speech of St. Peter 6 , « yap y&i n XaX- 

ijor^' 7?<rav yap ck<£o£oi. So again f , kcu 8K ySuaav re 

uvrw a7ro/cpiSa;(Ti. Both of which seem rather to be 
additions by St. Mark than omissions by St. Mat- 
thew ; and additions made by St. Peter ; inas- 
much as they look like transcripts of his own 
feelings supplied by one who reviews the account 
of a scene in which he was engaged, and ex- 
plains not only what he said, but what he thought 
and felt. In the account again which St. Mark 
gives of our Lord's arraignment before Pilate and 
of the attendant circumstances, many particulars 
are introduced which seem to shew that while 
the narrative of St. Matthew, as being substan- 
tially true, was generally adhered to, it was 
amplified by many slight touches which could 
be supplied only by one who was himself an 
actor in that scene. Thus giving an account of 
St. Peter's conduct after the scene in the garden, 

St. Matthew says, " o Se HzTpoq r^KoXsOu avTip mro 
fnaicpoSiv zioq Tt}Q avXrjq rs apyj.£ptu)Q' Kai, eiasXOwv taw, 
(Ka^TO fuera rwv inniptTtov. The account of St. 
Mark is " /cat o Utrpog airo /ua/cpoSev riKoXaOrjaev avrit) 
«i>£ eau) ttjc avXrjq ts apyjitpewg' Kai r\v <xv*y/ca$tyjuevoc 

fitra rwv virtipertav." The expressions of St. Mat- 
thew evidently served St. Mark as the groundwork 
of his relation, although the phrase of the latter has 
been rendered more compact. What however I 

e Matt. xvii. 4. compared with Mark ix. 6. 
f Matt, xxvi. 43. compared with Mark xiv. 40. 



219 

would more particularly notice, is that the conclu- 
ding clause of St. Matthew has been altered in its 
construction by the other writer, obviously with 
no other view than to annex an additional cir- 
cumstance, r)v (T/n-y/ca^T/juevoc /uera ra>v vTrrjpZTiDV — 

kcu Scp^uaivo/iEvoe npog to jnog, and this last cir- 
cumstance, his warming himself by the fire, so 
slight that no one except the person to whom it 
happened, and on whose mind the minutest oc- 
currences of that memorable night were inde- 
libly impressed, would probably have thought 
it worthy of being added to a former account g . 
Of the same description are those instances of 
greater minuteness in St. Mark's account of the 
trial. St. Matthew simply tells us that the 
rulers of the Jews could find no witnesses who 
could obtain belief 11 . St. Mark adds the reason 

g St. Luke (xxii. 54.) and St. John (xviii. 18.) also notice, it 
is true, the circumstances of the fire being kindled, and of St. 
Peter warming himself ; but the difference is this: their relations 
of this night's occurrences are original ; they do not make the 
words of another writer the groundwork of their own, up to a 
certain point, and then single out one unimportant circumstance 
to be added to the former narration. This is what St. Mark 
does ; and such a peculiarity cannot be attributed to any cause 
so probably as to the agency of St. Peter. In assuming that 
St. Mark wrote after St. Matthew, and, to a certain extent, 
copied his words, I am aware that I am opposing very great 
authorities. But as this question does not interfere with that 
concerning Palaeoromaica, this is not the place to assign my 
reasons for entertaining this view of the subject. 

b Matt. xxvi. 59, 60. 



220 

of their being considered incompetent, iaai yap 
hk; tiaav al papTvpiai. His informant had heard 
their testimony delivered, and was therefore 
able to testify that it was contradictory and in- 
consistent. The several indignities offered to 
Christ, the spitting on him, the smiting him, the 
buffeting, are related by St. Matthew xxv. 67. 
and in addition to these by St. Mark the covering 
of his face and other particulars. In the account 
of the damsel who accosted Peter, the respective 
attitudes and demeanour of the parties are more 
minutely and graphically described than by St. 
Matthew : she (^Xexpaaa avTu)) looking full at him ; 
he (Stppaivofizvoq) warming himself the while, as if 
willing to escape her scrutinizing regard. These 
are it is true almost imperceptible traits ; but 
having reference to such a scene, I can hardly 
consider them as uninteresting, or as quite unim- 
portant ; for as they harmonize with the situations 
and characters of the different Evangelists, and 
are too minute to have been designedly intro- 
duced, they add force to the presumption that 
the writings which bear their names are of their 
genuine production. 

Let us then consider whether we are not in a 
situation to offer a more direct and probable 
explanation of the introduction by St. Mark of 
those Hebrew or Syriac words which the author 
of Palaeoromaica supposed him to have quoted, 
for the sake of accuracy, from some original 



/ 

221 

" Hebrew document." The first word, fioavepyte, 
iii. 17. affords no presumption of having been 
copied from a Hebrew document; because, from 
whatever source St. Mark might derive his in- 
formation, if he wished to inform his readers that 
a certain name was bestowed by our Lord upon 
two of his disciples, he would naturally retain 
the name itself. To have given merely the ex- 
planation of the word, without the word itself, 
would have been useless, as well as contrary to 
the practice of all other writers in similar cases. 
Koptav, vii. 1 1 . may also be accounted for without 
the intervention of a document written in Hebrew; 
because it was a conventional term among the 
Jews ; it had a peculiar reference to a prevailing 
custom ; and therefore by the insertion of this 
appropriated term, the intended allusion to such 
custom is rendered much more manifest and 
direct than by the simple use of the equivalent 
Greek work. Indeed I am not sure whether any 
one unacquainted with Jewish customs might 
not read the passage in St. Matthew without 
being sensible that any reference to them was 
designed ; but, by the introduction of Kop^av, the 
attention is at once directed to consider the 
phrase as having some peculiar allusion. The 
utility of such an insertion is therefore evident ; 
but it by no means follows that St. Mark could 
not derive this information from the oral instruc- 
tion of St. Peter, and not from any written docu- 



222 

ment. Two other instances occur vii. 34 ; when 
to the deaf and dumb restored to hearing and 
speech our Lord is represented as saying e(jxpa% : 
and v. 41. to Jairus' daughter raX&a kb/uh : and in 
both cases an explanation is added. Now in the 
latter instance the cure was performed in the 
presence of only Peter, James, and John ; the 
multitude, excepting the father and mother, being 
put out ; and in the former case, previously to 
healing the deaf and dumb, Christ took him apart 
from the multitude into a private place (afro r» 
o^X» tear ihav) from which I infer that, although 
it be not specifically noticed, our Lord was 
here also attended by Peter and the other usual 
companions of his retirement. Indeed it does 
not appear to have been his practice on any oc- 
casion to perform his miracles absolutely in 
private ; and the very nature and intention of a 
miracle seem to require that it should have some 
witnesses. I therefore conclude that St. Peter, 
who is all along considered as the informant of 
St. Mark, was present on both these occasions ; 
and that to his recollection of what passed, we 
are indebted for the preservation of the words 
actually spoken by our Lord. This cure of the 
deaf and dumb, vii. 31 . is one of the facts added 
by St. Mark to the Gospel of his predecessor ; 
and it deserves to be noticed, that the only other 
circumstance which he adds, is related to have 
been attended with a very similar peculiarity. 

n 



223 

On our Lord's return to Bethsaida, viii. 22. he 
heals a blind man ; and here also it is remarkable, 
that previously to effecting the cure, " he led him 
out of the town." But, for the reasons above 
stated, I conclude that he would choose to be 
attended by some witnesses, and that these would 
be Peter and the other two who so often attended 
him on such occasions. That St. Mark's infor- 
mation was derived from some one of these three, 
and therefore most probably from Peter, with 
whom we know him to have been most connected, 
will be rendered probable by referring once 
more to the cure of Jairus' daughter, and by 
comparing the respective accounts of that event 
by the two Evangelists \ On this occasion " he 
suffered no man to follow him save Peter and 
James and John;" and accordingly the account 
in St. Mark, of what occurred after the people 
were put out, is so much more particular, that it 
can be regarded only as an enlargement of St. 
Matthew's narrative by an eye-witness of the 
scene ; and I must consider the mention of the 
very words (talitha cumi) which were uttered, as 
very much in character with the narrative of a 
person who was himself one of the few who were 
present and heard them. 

Thus far then the peculiarity which is noticed 
in the style of St. Mark may be accounted for by 

! Matt. ix. 23. and Mark iv. 38. 



224 

supposing him to write, under the superintend 
dance of St. Peter, a narrative of events which 
the latter Apostle had personally witnessed. 
This supposition is, as we have seen, confirmed 
by certain internal evidences ; and it is strictly 
conformable with the accounts which historians 
have left us of the connexion subsisting between 
these two disciples, and of the undertakings in 
which they were jointly engaged. St. Peter 
having preached with great success at Rome, 
was prevailed on by his converts to leave them 
an account authenticated by himself of the words 
and actions of Jesus Christ. If Peter had been 
desired, or had designed, to leave them an au- 
thentic record of what he himself believed upon 
this subject, he would undoubtedly have con- 
tented himself with recommending to them the 
Gospel of St. Matthew ; but if his wish were, as 
I conjecture, to attest nothing but what he him- 
self had witnessed, and from personal experience 
knew to be true, this course could not be taken. 
The elucidation and establishment of this hypo- 
thesis are undoubtedly important ; as it accounts 
for a circumstance which has hitherto much em- 
barrassed the critics ; namely, the apparently 
arbitrary manner in which certain facts are added 
by St. Mark to the Gospel of St. Matthew ; while 
others which the latter details, though apparently 
of equal importance, are passed over without 
notice. 



225 

But the explanation by St. Mark of the He- 
brew or Syriac words which he introduces, as 
it cannot assist the hypothesis of a Latin origi- 
nal, is a circumstance slightly dwelt upon in 
comparison with that of his sometimes annexing 
a Latin word in explanation of a Greek. As for 
instance, xii. 42, \ztttcl Bvo 6 zgti Kofyavrric; xv. 

16. £<rw Ttjg auXrjc v eoti wpaiTto)piov. " What is 

singular," says the objector, " upon the hypo- 
thesis that St. Mark wrote in Greek, is that he 
should have thought it necessary to explain 
Greek by Latin words," (p. 86.) But why sin- 
gular? if the Romans, for whose use and in- 
struction this Gospel was primarily written, 
were not likely to understand the Greek terms 
in question without such an explanation ; or, at 
all events, not to understand them so clearly 
as they would the equivalent Latin words an- 
nexed. The same practice is common in every 
language, and with almost all writers when the 
necessity for it occurs. Stephanus Byzantius, 
for example, relates that Euphorbus sacrificed 
to the infernal gods, " Ouavot/v 6 wnv aX&>7nj$, kcu 
E&v 6 tcTTiv cx iv °c (in v. A£avoi)." He explains a 
Phrygian or Egyptian, by a Greek word, because 
he was writing for Greeks ; and St. Mark ex- 
plains a Greek by a Latin word, because he 
' knew that his readers would be Romans. An 
equivalent mode of explaining the signification 
of a foreign term, is adopted by Dionysius Hali- 

Q 



226 
carnassensis, where, describing the polity of 

Romulus, he says, " EicaXei Se roue fizv tv ty Kara- 
Sseareoa rvyjQ nXrj€aouc> W£ S' ctv EAXtjvcc tnrouv Srj- 

tioriKovQ k " Here the phrase, <Jc ? av 'EXXrjvrrc 
et7rotev, is precisely equivalent with the o £(mv of 
St. Mark, and is introduced with a precisely 
similar view. A Greek, reading the history of 
Dionysius, would be at a loss to understand who 
the ir\ri%uoi were, until he was informed that 
they corresponded in rank with those whom his 
countrymen called SripariKovQ : so a Roman, though 
he could not but suppose that Xbtttov was a coin, 
would have a very imperfect conception of the 
value of the widow's offering oW Xc7rra : but 
when it was added, that they were equal to a 
quadrans, he would know the amount as well as 
an English peasant does on being told, that 
" she threw in two mites, which make a farthing" 
This explanation of St. Mark's views assumes, 
undoubtedly, that he wrote for the use and in- 
struction primarily of Roman readers, and pro- 
bably at Rome ; which, by Baronius \ is al- 
leged as a convincing proof that it could not be 
written " in any other than the language of the 
place." But, before we admit the inference, 
that a Gospel written under these circumstances 
must have been written in Latin, will it not be 
advisable to enquire whether all others, who 

* Antiqu, Rom, II, 8. | See Pah p. 76. 



227 

wrote at Rome for the use of Romans, thought 
it necessary to pursue that course ? That Jose- 
phus wrote at Rome cannot indeed be affirmed ; 
but we know, on his own authority, that, having 
written his history in Chaldaic, he made a trans- 
lation of the original for the information of those 
Romans who were not in the wars ; yet that 
translation was in Greek. And does not literary 
history supply us with very many analogous 
instances ? What are we to think of the cases 
of Plutarch, of Strabo, of Dionysius Halicarnas- 
sensis, Diodorus and Appian ? These all wrote 
at Rome, some previously, others subsequently, 
to St. Mark, and for the use of Romans ; yet 
they all wrote in Greek. The instance of iElian 
is perhaps still more in point. He was a Latin 
by birth ; and his biographer, Philostratus, in- 
forms us, never was out of Italy. If he then 
composed his histories in Greek, what conceiv- 
able difficulty is there in supposing that St. 
Mark may have done the same? Philostratus 
too makes, concerning iElian, another remark ; 
that, considering his having written in a foreign 
language, he wrote surprisingly well ; and I be- 
lieve that a fair comparison, between his style 
and that of St. Mark, will prove that the obser- 
vation may, with at least equal justice, be ex- 
tended to the latter. 

Having thus completed an examination of as 
many of the arguments and examples, adduced 

a 2 



228 

in proof of a Latin original, as the limits of this 
work will allow, I must add that, if my design 
has been successfully executed, it will appear 
by this time how unsubstantial is the hypothesis 
of Palseoromaica, and how vague are the criti- 
cal principles, if principles they may indeed be 
called, upon which it is founded. My endeavour 
has been to shew, that the employment of Roman 
terms and phrases is natural, and was to be ex- 
pected in writers situated as the Apostles were : 
that the Septuagint Version of the Old Testa- 
ment is a source to which many of the pecu- 
liarities of their style must be referred ; that the 
hypothesis of a Latin original is therefore gra- 
tuitous and unnecessary ; that many instances, 
adduced in confirmation of it, are nugatory ; and 
that others, so far from proving the point, of 
which the establishment is desired, demonstra- 
tively shew that, as far as these instances extend, 
no such Latin text as is contemplated can ever 
have existed. Let me repeat, that I have not 
written for the learned, who are able without 
any such aid to detect the fallacies of this very 
paradoxical work : but these pages are for the 
use of that very numerous class of readers who 
may be in danger of adopting an opinion, urged 
with plausibility and a shew of learning; not 
being able, through want of leisure or other 
causes, to examine for themselves its true claims 
to acceptance. To readers of this description 



229 

I have, I trust, said enough to shew them the 
incapacity of their guide ; to make them receive 
his statements with caution ; and estimate his 
critical opinions at just what they are worth. 
There still however remain a few other points to 
which I feel myself called to extend my obser- 
vations. 

The principal excellence on which the author 
appears to pique himself, is his supposition, that 
the text from which our Greek was derived, 
whether that were the Apostolical original or 
not, has utterly perished. This he repeatedly 
tells us is the key-stone of his system ; the cha- 
racteristic by which it is most advantageously 
distinguished from the system of Hardouin m . 
As enabling a disputant to play fast and loose 
with his subject, to assume whatever is conve- 
nient, and to decline whatever seems to threaten 
danger, the want of a fixed and definite text* as 
a standard of ultimate appeal, has its advan- 
tages ; tempting advantages to a visionary mind, 
as they enable it to indulge in the very wanton- 

m " Hardouin's fundamental mistake was the hypothesis, that 
the Latin Vulgate was the primitive exemplar. How much he 
was hampered by this foolish notion may appear from a few 
examples, &c." p. 191. " Hardouin in fact was so ham- 
pered by his notion of the originality of the Latin Vulgate, that 
the absurdities to which it led him, threw ridicule upon his 
whole argument, and prevented the most ingenious and solid of 
his remarks from meeting with attention," p. 209. 



230 

ness of rash conjecture. But, in every other 
point of view, I must unhesitatingly assign the 
preference to the hypothesis of Hardouin. I 
speak, of course, only by way of comparison ; 
not meaning to recommend the system of Har- 
douin, but agreeing most entirely in all the cen- 
sures which it has incurred from sober-minded 
judges. Still, if it were necessary to choose be- 
tween that and the hypothesis of Palseoromaica, 
I must give my suffrage for the former, as being 
less injurious to the credit of religion, less con- 
tradictory of all reasonable probabilities, and 
less complicated in its conception and details. 
If the opinion of Hardouin admitted of proof, if 
it could be well established that the Latin Vul- 
gate proceeded from the hands of the Apostles, 
and had therefore a claim to a more venerable 
antiquity, and a more attentive regard than the 
Greek, which would then be the derived text, 
we should still be left in possession of the in- 
spired original, and be able to trace the deriva- 
tion of the translation from it. Nothing would 
then remain but to reverse the degrees of credit 
with which the Greek and Latin texts have 
hitherto been regarded : no age of Christianity 
will have been without the genuine written word 
of God, and we still have it in our possession. 
But the hypothesis of Palaeoromaica places us in 
a very different situation ; the writings of inspi- 
ration are lost, and we have no means whatever 



5 






231 

of connecting with them the writings which we 
possess ; the evidences of religion, as far as they 
are referable to the credit due to the Apostles, 
will depend on the conformity of the writings 
which bear their names, with other writings, the 
very existence of which is a subject only of 
assumption and conjecture. It would be dog- 
matising, unworthily of such a cause, to assume 
that Christianity is true, and that therefore every 
opinion which contradicts it must be false. But 
the truth of Christianity is admitted by the au- 
thor of Palaeoromaica ; and I must beg him to 
consider how such an admission can be consis- 
tent with his philological opinions ; or whether 
those opinions may not be appealed to as an 
argumentum ad hominem, to prove that his re- 
ligious persuasions cannot be well-founded. It is 
part of his assumption, that our present Greek text 
does not correctly represent the Latin from which 
it is derived ; and which, as far as the present ar- 
gument is concerned, may be regarded as iden- 
tical with the Apostolic original. He conceives, 
that the original becomes known to us, in de- 
tached portions, only by its deviation from the 
original, the sense of which was ignorantly mis- 
taken by the translator. Can it then be denied 
that, if the original were a revelation from God, 
which it were impious to doubt, our present 
text, so far as it deviates from that original, is not 
& revelation? And as we are supposed to know 



232 

only the fact that such a deviation has taken 
place, and to have no possible means of ascer- 
taining to what extent, we cannot tell how far 
we are required to place faith, not in the Word 
of God, but in the dictates of fallible men, w of 
like passions with ourselves." 

With respect to the comparative freedom from 
complication, exhibited by the hypothesis of 
Hardouin and that of Palseoromaica, the advan- 
tage is, evidently and entirely, on the side of the 
former. Hardouin only requires us to believe 
that the genuine Apostolical writings have, 
through some unaccountable mistake, hitherto 
been regarded as translations, while the text 
really translated has usurped the name and cre- 
dit of the original. But he makes no such de- 
mand on our credulity, as to claim our assent to 
the postulatum laid down as the groundwork of 
Palaeoromaica ; that our present New Testament 
is not only not the original, but may not be even 
immediately derived from the original ; that in 
many books not only the primary text, but at 
least one version intervening between it and our 
Vulgate Greek, has been suffered entirely to 
disappear. This supposition of the loss of a 
two-fold text, the on& Greek, the other Latin, is 
not openly maintained ; but it may be detected 
running tacitly through most of the arguments 
of Palaeoromaica. In the case of the Epistle to 
Philemon it is admitted : " There is one Epistle 



233 

in the New Testament, which even Hardouin 
himself admits to have been originally composed 
in Greek ; but (from two philological phenomena 
which occur in it n ) he contends that our present 
Greek Vulgate is not the original but a transla- 
tion," (p. 204.) This inference the author of 
Palaeoromaica admits, with the addition that our 
Greek text of this Epistle is a version from the 
Latin; jhat is, a Greek translation of a Latin 
translation of the original Greek. In like man- 
ner, if there be any force in his arguments, (p. 
166 — 199,) that St. Paul would deem it proper 

11 These are, ver. 1, $Ckr\\iovi ry aya^ry, and ver. 10, II. 
Ovrjcifiov rov irore a%pjj(rrov, vvvi tie trot <at tfioi evxptjorovt where 
the philologist contends it is evident, that to support his allu- 
sions to the names, St. Paul in his Greek must have written 
4>i\»;/*oi>t Ttp <j>ikrjT<f>, and Ovrjcifiov rov wore avovtjvifiov vvvi ds Ovijaivov. 
The best mode of determining the probability, whether St. 
Paul would here employ such a style, will be to examine 
whether, in other cases where the Greek proper names which 
he introduces have a meaning attached to them, he is accus- 
tomed to descend to any such laborious trifling, or to indulge 
in a mere clench and jingle of sounds. I think not ; for Rom. 
xvi. 7. we find him terming Avfyovncog his awaixfiaXorriQ ; and 
v. 5. iSjraivtTog is saluted as being ayanriTos. Coloss. iv. 17. he 
charges Apx^irog that he should take heed to his Siaicovia. ; 
and calls E7ra0po£iro£ his avvepyog Kat ffvaTpartiorriQ ; and 2 Tim. i. 
16. speaking of the assistance he had received from Ovrjaupopog, 
he expresses it by the word avt^vlt. In all which, and other 
instances, it would baffle the ingenuity of Hardouin to excogi- 
tate a Greek text in which, the same sense remaining, the verbal 
allusions shall be preserved. 



234 

to write to the Romans, Corinthians, and Phi- 
lippians in Latin, he would, upon the same prin- 
ciples, deem it proper to write to the Galatians, 
Ephesians, Colossians, and others in Greek. But 
our Vulgate Greek text of the last named Epis- 
tles exhibits, no less than that of the former, 
internal proofs of being a translation from the 
Latin. The 'primitive Greek, therefore, which 
our Vulgate cannot be, must have ceased to 
exist ; and not only the 'primitive Greek, but also 
that Latin translation from it, through which our 
present Greek was derived. To account for the 
neglect and disappearance of the Latin text it is 
urged, that " the Greek (language) from the age 
of Hadrian began to gain the ascendancy over 
the Latin," (p. 332.) Now it is obvious, that if 
this afford any presumption that the Latin Scrip- 
tures would, from this time, fall into disuse, it 
argues with at least equal force that the Greek 
would be more generally sought after. Whence 
then could it arise that, for the use of the in- 
creasing Greek church, recourse was not had to 
the original Greek Epistles of St. Paul to Phile- 
mon, to the Galatians, the Ephesians, and other 
churches ? (which by the admission, or in con- 
formity with the principles, of Paleeoromaica, 
must have been in Greek, and at so early a pe- 
riod as 140 years after Christ could not be anni- 
hilated and forgotten;) why was not recourse 
had to these, instead of endeavouring to supply 



235 

• 

the general and increasing want of a Greek text, 
by so imperfect a retranslation as is represented 
to be contained in our Vulgate ? and if, before 
the age of Hadrian, the Latin had the ascen- 
dancy, how came it that the original Latin Epis- 
tles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Philip- 
pians, fell into such neglect, that translations in- 
numerable, from the Greek into Latin, were 
adopted into common use from the earliest ages ? 
In endeavouring to account for this the author 
expends some needless learning, with a design 
to shew how it may come to pass that in many 
cases a translation shall be preferred to the ori- 
ginal. But here is what good Bishop Berkeley, 
and the logicians, call &fallacia suppositionis, or a 
shifting of the hypothesis. The original suppo- 
sition was not, it is evident, that a translation has 
been preferred to the original, but that the ori- 
ginal and the translation have had so little store 
set by them, that both of them have been al- 
lowed to perish. This loss of a two-fold text is 
brought as little as possible into notice, but it 
must not be lost sight of by those who wish to 
form a true judgment of this novel hypothesis ; 
and I am greatly mistaken if, keeping this in 
view, we do not find the " absurdity" so libe^ 
rally imputed to Hardouin's hypothesis, gather- 
ing thick around this new and improved edition 
of it. 

The author's own opinion of his system is ? 



236 

however, that the admission of it would not be 
more prejudicial to the character of the Scrip- 
tures, than that of some other opinions which 
are entertained without scruple by the most or- 
thodox writers. In the conclusion of the work, (p. 
470,) it is even hinted, that " the establishment 
of the hypothesis, which is developed in the pre- 
ceding Disquisitions would, perhaps, be produc- 
tive ofconsiderable theological advantages. Upon 
the first of these points," he says, speaking of the 
Epistle which is alluded to, 1 Cor. xv. 9. and 
which many critics have supposed to be no longer 
extant, " it is surely bolder to say with Calvin 
and Beza that, Epistles of Paul are wholly lost, 
than that some, or even all of them, exist only in 
translations ." Two questions are here, I think, 
more than doubtful : first, whether in this pas- 
sage St. Paul alluded to any other Epistle than 
that on which he was actually employed, and 
which is still extant : secondly, if he intended to 
speak of another Epistle, and that Epistle have 
perished, whether it were one of those written 
by him under the influence of inspiration. At 
all events it is manifest that, if any single Epistle 
of his have been totally lost, although it cannot 
instruct, it cannot mislead us ; its effect at most 
is neutral. Not so the effect of writings which 
" exist only in translation," if that translation be 

* Note 19, p. t>2. 



237 

incorrect, and we have no means of connecting 
it with the original. If we have only a garbled 
representation of the Apostle's words, so far then 
our faith is not " built on the foundation of 
the Apostles :" if " all Scripture/' or every writ- 
ing, " given by inspiration of God is profitable 
for instruction in righteousness," then our Vul- 
gate Greek text, inasmuch as it deviates from 
the original, is so far not given by inspiration, 
and therefore so far not profitable for instruction 
in righteousness. 

Another sophism still requires to be noticed. 
From the days of Wetstein, if from no earlier 
date, a suspicion has been entertained by critics 
that certain MSS. of the New Testament latinize, 
or that their Greek text has been in many in- 
stances corrected from the Vulgate or some 
other Latin version. That the allegations of 
Wetstein were too general, and in a great degree 
unfounded, has been shewn so convincingly by 
later critics, that it is needless to recapitulate 
their arguments p . All which in the present 
state of criticism can be considered as well- 
established, is, that the charge, with respect to 

p See in Pal. p. 370-72, the remarks of Michaelis, Bishop 
Marsh, and Mr. Hug. These, singularly enough, are intro- 
duced into the text of a work, the conclusions of which they 
tend directly to overthrow, without an attempt to remove the 
effect which they cannot fail of producing. They certainly de- 
served a reply ; but perhaps did not admit of one. 



238 

Some MSS. is true to a certain extent. " I would 
not be understood/' says Michaelis, " to assert 
that the Greek text (of certain MSS) has in no 
case been altered from the Latin ;" and as this 
charge has been most extensively imputed to the 
Codex Bezae, upon which MS. also copious ob- 
servations are made in Palseoromaica, that shall 
stand with us as representative of the entire 
implicated class. " If," argues the author, " it be 
no crime to charge this MS. to say nothing of its 
venerable compeers, with being either a version, 
or throughout interpolated from the Latin, where 
can be the offence of enquiring whether this may 
not be the case with the Vulgate Text, or, in 
other words with the confessedly modern MSS. 
of Basil and Alcala ?" Here I am again compelled 
to remark " a shifting of the hypothesis." The 
text of those MSS. which are most vehemently 
accused of latinizing was never, that I am aware, 
charged with being a version from the Latin ; nor 
was this the meaning of the critics by whom the 
term latinizing was invented and applied. On 
the other hand the Greek text, as exhibited in the 
Elzevir edition, is not charged, in Palseoromaica, 
simply with being interpolated from the Latin, 
but broadly and expressly, from the title page to 
the conclusion of the book, it is spoken of as a 
version from the Latin, absolutely and in all its 
parts. Admitting even the justice of the former 
charge against the Codex Bezse, it requires 



239 

much more ingenuity than has yet been displayed 
to shew how it can with justice be extended to the 
text which is contained in the MSS. and in the 
writings of the Fathers collectively. The Greek 
text of the Cambridge MS. has been so reformed, 
if that term may be used here, that particular 
words and phrases have been changed, to bring 
it, as nearly as may be, to a correspondency 
with the Latin. And how is this discovered, 
except through the agency of other MSS. which 
do not exhibit that suspicious correspondency ; 
and which therefore cannot with justice be in- 
volved in the same charge with a MS. the falsifi- 
cation of which they are the very instruments of 
exposing ? " If," as the late Bishop of Calcutta 
justly argued, " we had no other Greek MS. of the 
Evangelists and Acts than the Codex Bezae — 
Hardouin's hypothesis of a Latin original of the 
Gospel and Acts would not be altogether chi- 
merical' 1 ." And this is unquestionably true. If 
all our acquaintance with the Greek text of the 
Gospels and Acts were derived from this single 
MS., then, since the conformity between the 
Greek and Latin texts of this copy is very evi- 
dent, and it is plain that the Greek in many in- 
stances, has been made to coincide with the Latin, 
and not the Latin with the Greek, there might be 
some plausibility in the opinion that the Latin 
was the original, and the Greek the secondary 

* Gr> Article. 695. 



240 

text. But in no other case would this conclusion 
be justifiable, and we are at liberty, to think 
"■ that Hardouin's hypothesis is altogether chi- 
merical," because we have other Greek MSS. 
which enable us to detect the interpolations of 
the Codex Bezae. There is, it may be said, a 
contest between two opposing texts ; the one 
agreeing with the Latin, and arguing a transla- 
tion from it, the other not exhibiting such an 
agreement ; and who shall determine that the 
former is not genuine ; especially supported as 
it is by the Codex Bezee, perhaps the most 
antient of existing MSS. and by others of a very 
high character ? In many instances unquestion- 
ably the text of the Codex Bezse, and of its 
its kindred MSS. agreeing with the Latin, is to 
be preferred to the readings in others which have 
no such agreement. But does it follow that in 
all these instances the Greek has been altered 
from the Latin ? So Wetstein thought, but the 
opposers of his opinion have successfully disputed 
the correctness of his conclusion upon grounds 
similar to those which I have taken against the 
hypothesis of Palseoromaica ; or by shewing that 
the appearances in question might be satisfac- 
torily accounted for in a more probable manner. 
The prevailing and more reasonable persuasion 
is, that most of the words and phrases which 
were once regarded as marks of latinizing in a 
Greek MS. instead of having been made to cor- 



241 

respond with the Latin, are the genuine readings 
of those early exemplars from which our existing 
copies, and the Latin translation itself were alike, 
in the first instance, derived. Surely therefore, 
when it is demanded " where can be the offence 
of enquiring whether the Vulgate Greek text be 
not a version from the Latin," seeing that the 
Codex Bezae is admitted to have been in a very 
few instances interpolated from the Latin, it may 
be sufficient to reply that the cases are in no 
respect parallel. The corruption of the Codex 
Bezae, of the Alexandrian, the Laudian, or of any 
single MS. must have been the work of a single 
individual ; and argues nothing more than an 
individual's erroneous conception of the manner 
in which the Greek text might be restored to 
purity ; but the loss of the original Apostolic 
writings, and the substitution of imperfect trans- 
lations in their place, argues the existence of the 
grossest and most unaccountable negligence on 
the part of the whole Eastern and Western 
Churches ; and casts a slur on the entire Chris- 
tian world. In the next place the interpolations 
of any single MS. are discoverable by the appli- 
cation of those just and certain principles which 
constitute the science of sacred criticism; but 
the unqualified substitution of a translated text 
for the original leaves us without any means 
whatever of discovering how perfectly or imper- 
fectly that original has been adhered to ; it not 

E 



242 

only plunges us in darkness, but it cuts us off 
from the possibility of ever arriving at the con- 
fines of light. 

It does not yet appear, then, that we have any 
right to congratulate ourselves on the attainment 
of those theological advantages, which " should 
seem to accrue to our faith by the establishment 
of the hypothesis'' of Palseoromaica. These ad- 
vantages are in fact nothing more than a partial 
and uncandid statement of the disadvantages 
attending the present state of biblical criticism. 
Witness what is said (p. 470,) respecting the 
existence of various readings in the Sacred Text 
and their influence in rendering that text fluc- 
tuating and uncertain. If the author of those re- 
marks understand but one fourth part of what 
he has read, he must be sensible that, after the 
extensive and indefatigable researches, which 
have been conducted with equal ingenuity and 
judgment, by scholars, silently wearing out their 
lives in these unostentatious pursuits, and applying 
the result of their labours not as partisans but 
with the utmost impartiality and candour, the 
text of the New Testament is any thing but 
fluctuating and uncertain. As however this 
subject of various readings is generally regarded 
as one of an abstruse and complicated nature 
and as a persuasion that he is incompetent to 
examine the question for himself may expose the 
mind of the general reader to many distressing 



243 

doubts, which the insinuations of Palaeoromaica 
are, unhappily, too well calculated to excite, a 
few pages may not be unserviceably employed 
in endeavouring to make the merits of the case 
popularly intelligible. 

It cannot have escaped the notice of any one who 
has made the trial, that, in transcribing a writing 
of any length, notwithstanding the most earnest 
desire and the most constant attention to copy it 
with accuracy, the original will not be invariably 
followed throughout. The eye will be misled, the 
attention will sometimes slumber, the hand will 
occasionally falter in its mechanical process : and 
from these and other causes, which it is needless 
to mention, partial differences will be found 
always to exist between the original and the 
copy. Differences, be it observed, which be- 
token not the slightest dishonesty of intention, 
but are the unavoidable effects of human infir- 
mity r . In this manner therefore it could not 
but happen that the copies of the Apostolic 
writings which were made immediately from the 
very originals, should vary in certain respects 

r I have designedly alluded here only to the most common 
cause of variation between the original and the copy. Instances 
undoubtedly occur of alterations designedly made in the text of 
particular MSS. by persons acting under false critical views : 
but these are few in number, and must be regarded only as ex? 
ceptions to the general rule laid down in the text. 

R 2 



244 

from those originals, or, in other words, exhibit 
various readings. These, by the operation of 
similar causes at each successive transcription, 
would be continually augmented in number ; and 
it is plain that, under such a state of things, we 
cannot expect to find any two MSS. entirely 
conforming to each other, or any one MS. pre- 
senting a faultless transcript of the words of the 
Apostles. Such is the origin of the greater num- 
ber of the various readings which have been 
discovered in the documents, from which, col- 
lectively, the text of the New Testament is to 
be extracted : and it is plain that this state of 
things could have been prevented only by the 
exertion of a constant supernatural superinten- 
dance over every individual transcriber ; that is 
by a series of miracles, and a perpetual infrac- 
tion of the laws of nature, which no reasonable 
person can expect to witness. In a less instructed 
age the exertion of such a superintendance was 
inferred, because it was thought that, without it, 
the integrity of the Sacred Writings could not 
be preserved. But fuller enquiry has shewn 
that it was not exerted (otherwise there had been 
no various readings) and a juster comprehension 
of the subject teaches us to believe that neither 
was it necessary. " Should we grant the asser- 
tion/' says the author of Palaeromaica " that 
every word of the Greek Testament was originally 



245 

inspired by the Holy Spirit 8 , yet amidst a hun- 
dred and fifty thousand various readings, which 
is the word used by the Holy Spirit" (p. 469.) 
And again, "I would exclaim with Erasmus, let 
me be shewn the word dictated by the Holy 
Spirit and I will embrace it with the utmost 
reverence." We know who they were who 
cried " shew us a sign from heaven;" give us 
demonstrative assurance and then " we will 
believe ;" but God rejected their "unreasonable 
demand because a moral and not a demonstrative 

8 Where, when, or by whom, such an assertion was made I can- 
not tell ; but, if it ever were made, it is at all events incorrect. 
A very slight inspection of the Apostolic writings will shew that 
there was no suggestion of the words which the authors of them 
should employ. Amidst the various readings we seek " which 
is the word used" by the Apostles ; in order that we may be 
convinced that we possess a correct exposition of the sentiments 
which were the suggestions of the Spirit. 

" Objections drawn from any supposed defects in the style 
of the Sacred Writings are almost too futile to deserve attention. 
The matter contained in these writings rather than the manner 
is that which proves them to be divine. To imagine the Al- 
mighty interposing to enable men to become proficients in the 
art of literary composition is frivolous and below the dignity of 
the subject. Were we obliged to contend even for a strictly 
verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, such arguments as these 
might easily be repelled. But against an inspiration plenary as 
to substance only, and not as to the words of Holy Writ, they 
weigh but as dust in the balance." Sermons preached for the 
Lecture founded by the Hon. Robert Boyle : By the Right Rev. 
William Van Mildert, D.D. Lord Bishop of Landaff. Vol. ii. 
p. 406. 



246 

assurance was all the evidence which He saw 
could reasonably be required. And if, in the 
case of the Sacred Text, he also withhold a mi- 
racle because he has, placed within our reach the 
means of attaining moral certainty, shall they 
escape the condemnation of the scribes and 
pharisees who clamour that infinite wisdom 
should enlarge the bounds which itself has set, 
and refuse to be convinced without clearer evi- 
dence than that which is given ? As to the ques- 
tion, which is the word used by those who wrote 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is suffi- 
ciently evident that the number, a hundred and 
fifty thousand various readings is blazoned forth 
with a design of impressing upon the unin- 
structed, that such a number cannot exist with- 
out rendering the text in which they occur 
fluctuating and uncertain. Now, out of these 
hundred and fifty thousand, though I believe that 
even half that number have never yet been 
reckoned up, three fourths at least are evidently 
the effect of error in the copyist, and therefore, in 
seeking to establish a genuine text, they may be 
left wholly out of the account ; a great many 
rest on such incompetent anthority, and are coun- 
terbalanced by such a weight of opposing evi- 
dence, that they may be at once rejected ; many 
more are transpositions which affect only the order 
of the words and not the sense of the passage ; 
while, respecting a very numerous class, it may 



247 

be incontrovertibly shewn how they originated 
from the genuine reading, which, through them, 
may be clearly recognised. 

After making these deductions, if the number 
remaining be still considerable, whence does it 
arise but from the multiplicity of copies ? and the 
multiplicity of copies, while it thus increases the 
number of various readings, enables us more 
clearly to discern which among them all is the 
genuine. These copies act as mutual correctives 
where they disagree, and satisfy us as to the 
genuineness of those readings in favour of which 
the greatest weight of testimony is exhibited. 
Which indeed, in the case of profane authors, are 
the most corrupted texts, or the texts of whose 
genuineness we have the least assurance ? Those, 
it is admitted, of which the smallest number of 
copies survive, or which present the fewest va- 
rious readings V This alone may remove the 

1 ie The ingenious Phileleutherus Lipsiensis (Dr. Bentley) 
hath shewn to demonstration, that the great abundance of manu- 
scripts brought from Egypt, Asia, and the Western Churches 
hath enabled us to settle the Sacred Text by collating the one 
with the other, and following that reading which is agreeable to 
the sense," (rather, that which is supported by the greater 
number of approved testimonies) " upon the clearest and most 
incontestible footing ; which could never be done if we had but 
one or two manuscripts to print from : so this, instead of being 
an objection against the genuineness of the New Testament, as 
it stands at present, is the strongest argument in its favour that 
the nature of the thing admits of. * It is for this reason/ he ob- 



248 

anxiety which might be occasioned by the exist- 
ence of so many various readings, by proving to 
us that, so far from rendering the Sacred Text 
fluctuating and uncertain, they afford assurance 
that we possess so much better materials, for 
establishing a text which shall not sensibly dif- 
fer from the original. This is a fixed and in- 
variable rule, that the smaller the number of 
copies which we possess, or the fewer various 
readings we can detect, the less assurance we 
have of our possessing the unvitiated text of any 
ancient writer. 

Previously to examination this may appear a 
paradoxical assertion ; but the rule is founded 

serves, * that we can never have a tolerable edition of either 
Velleius Pater cuius, or Hesychius, because there happens to be 
but one manuscript of each preserved ; and that Terence is now 
in a better condition than any of the classic writers, merely on 
account of the great variety of manuscripts by which the editors 
of that author adjusted their editions. He says he saw at least 
twenty thousand various readings in the manuscripts of this 
little book, and is sure that, had the same scrupulous care been 
taken to collate all the manuscripts of Terence which was em- 
ployed about those of the New Testament, the number of va- 
rious readings must have amounted to fifty thousand. After 
all the noise made by libertines, about various readings, they 
were little more than literal and involuntary errors of the tran- 
scribers, incapable of serving any party, or influencing any de- 
bate ; and ten times the number might be gathered out of half 
the printed Bibles in Europe, which, all put together, are of no 
consequence to any one doctrine controverted or agreed on." 
Ophiomaches, or Deism Revealed, Vol. II. p. 46. 



249 

on principles nearly self-evident, as may be 
easily made to appear. If any number of men, 
separately and independently, make copies of 
the same writing, it is certain that each of their 
copies will contain errors ; and therefore the 
greater the number of copies, the greater will be 
the number of errors or of various readings. 
But, on the other hand, the greater the number 
of copyists, the smaller will be the chance of 
their all falling into the same error. As I write 
to be comprehended by those to whom such sub- 
jects are not familiar, I shall not blush to use a 
very homely illustration. If a man were to put 
on only three coats at once, it would be mar- 
vellous indeed if he should find a hole through 
them all in exactly the same place. Such a 
thing might happen; but, according to the estab- 
lished laws of probability, it is not likely to hap- 
pen : .and when, as in the case of the writings of 
the New Testament, we have the power of re- 
ferring not to three, but, directly or indirectly, 
to more than three hundred witnessess, the 
chances in our favour are so incalculable as to 
justify us in affirming, with a confidence which 
is next to certainty, that no single error runs 
through them all ; and if not, then, though no 
single MS. may contain a perfect copy of the 
Sacred Text, yet between them all they must 
contain it, and from them collectively it may be 
deduced. Upon these two principles, that the 



250 

Sacred Text is floating in the world, and that, 
with the means providentially in our power, the 
faculties of men are capable of recovering and 
identifying it, rests the entire fabric of sacred 
criticism. Every moral enquiry, it must be 
granted, in which men do or can engage, pro- 
ceeds upon the supposition that there is such 
a thing as truth existing, and that, however con- 
cealed and disguised by the short-sightedness 
and prejudices of men, there is still a possibility 
that the efforts made for its discovery may be 
attended with success. Take away this possi- 
bility, in other words suppose that truth has no 
existence, and wherefore should men persevere in 
the prosecution of enquiries which would no 
longer have any possible object or definite end ? 
Just so, in the science of sacred criticism, so 
long as we are allowed to think that the original 
expressions of the Apostles, however partially 
hidden by interpolations and transpositions, are 
yet contained, if not in any individual MS. in 
the collective mass of existing documents, the 
discovery of the genuine text forms a reasonable 
object of exertion. We may, by employing our 
faculties and industry aright, continually ap- 
proach nearer to the identification of the actual 
words employed by the Apostles ; we shall be 
encouraged to proceed by the consciousness that 
complete success is of possible attainment ; and 
by the moral certainty that we cannot be far re- 



251 

moved from it. - But all this is upon the suppo- 
sition, a reasonable supposition, I think it has 
been shewn to be, that the original text is yet 
preserved, and that means exist of gathering and 
identifying its genuine parts. Once admit the 
hypothesis of Palaeoromaica, once suppose the 
extinction of the genuine text, and you render all 
enquiry respecting the actual language of the 
Apostles useless and therefore unreasonable. 
But i( let me be shewn the word dictated by the 
Holy Spirit ,, is the cry ; out of many readings 
which is genuine ? That, we reply, in favour of 
which reason and judgment, exercised according 
to certain approved rules, shall pronounce the 
balance of evidence to incline. Because reason 
and judgment are not infallible, the criterion here 
proposed, I am ready to admit, is not infallible ; 
but this is a question of evidence ; and the assu- 
rance which is thus obtained, after impartially 
weighing what may be said on either side, is as 
satisfactory as that upon which men do not hesi- 
tate to act in the most important affairs of life u : 

u " This way of balancing evidences and subtracting the less 
from the greater, in order to proportion the assent to the over- 
plus, ought not to be passed over without examination. As 
propositions in themselves are either true or false, so they must 
appear to be either true or false to the mind, before it fixes its 
assent. As soon as the judgment hath weighed the evidences 
for and against any proposition, and fully rests in the belief of 
that proposition, although the evidences against it were allowed 



252 

and in the case before us the balance of evidence 
is sufficient to beget a moral conviction, which, 
in matters of religion, is faith. The author of 
Palaeoromaica shuns the imputation of unbelief, 
nor would I wantonly attach the charge of scep- 
ticism to one who professes himself a Christian ; 
not only a Christian but a Protestant ; and not 
only a Protestant but a believer in the personality 
of the Holy Spirit : but it would be an unworthy 
compromise of my own principles not to declare 
my persuasion that his principles, in certain 
instances, approach nearly to those of Deism. 
You believe, says the infidel, that miracles were 
performed in confirmation of Christ's divine mis- 
sion ; but there are difficulties opposed to such a 
belief; you may be deceived. You believe, says 
the author of Palseoromaica, that this is the 

all their weight in the scrutiny, yet they are now regarded as 
false, and thrown entirely out of the scales. Were not this the 
case, how could a jury, on oath, find their neighbour guilty of 
murder, after a trial in which he had produced considerable 
evidence for his innocence against superior evidence for his 
guilt? — It is true that when the evidences on both sides of any 
point appear equal there can be no assent. It is likewise certain 
that opposite arguments, not equal but nearly equivalent, leave 
a faint and feeble assent on the side where the superiority seems 
to lie ; but if the superiority appears to be very great on one 
side, the assent of a rational mind closes entirely with it, believes 
without reserve, and, having regarded the arguments against its 
assent as nothing, ceases to attend to them, or entirely forgets 
them." Opkiomaches, p. £6. 



253 

genuine sacred text ; but you have no demon- 
strative assurance that it is so ; you may be de- 
ceived. To both we reply, that we accept, as 
true, the account of miracles recorded in the 
New Testament, and we accept, as genuine, that 
text which critical research has extracted from 
the mass of documents, not because we can, in 
either case, prove to demonstration that our per- 
suasion is well founded, but because it appears 
to us that no impartial enquirer can regard the 
evidences on both sides as equal or nearly equi- 
valent. We therefore bestow our assent where 
the superiority lies, because it would be acting 
inconsistently with the laws of reason and evi- 
dence to withhold it until absolute certainty is 
attained, in a case wherein we know that nothing 
beyond moral certainty is to be looked for. In 
two or three instances the evidence in favour of 
two opposing readings, may appear to be so 
equally balanced, as to prevent impartial critics 
from pronouncing a decided opinion on either 
side ; but rare exceptions of this kind do not 
vitiate the general rule. As far as these partial 
instances extend, the text may be called fluc- 
tuating and uncertain ; farther than this, and 
speaking generally, it is neither one nor the 
other. After the lengthened examination which 
the subject has undergone, arid after numberless 
authorities consulted and collated., no man, who 
takes a fair view of the question in its present 



254 

state, need hesitate to avow his conviction that 
the text, which is extracted from those authori- 
ties collectively, is virtually identical with the 
text from which our existing copies, and the 
copies employed by the Greek Fathers in their 
quotations, were all originally derived : that is, 
with the text contained in the autographs of the 
Apostles. 

To return once more, and for the last time, to 
the proofs by which it is attempted to support 
the hypothesis of a Latin original, a very fa- 
vourite class with the author is that which is 
founded on the occurrence in the text of Latin 
idioms literally translated into Greek. I do not 
mean to deny that a bad and servile translation 
generally affords marks of its origin, by too close 
an adherence to the idiomatic peculiarities of the 
original : but, I ask, are servile translations the 
only writings in which such marks appear ? If 
not, if the occurrence of such idioms may be 
consistent with originality in the composition, 
then it is plain that the argument proceeds upon 
a false supposition, and is consequently nothing 
worth. Let us scrutinize now the speech of St. 
Evremond, which is quoted from the jest books, 
and duly referred to in the index, as affording a 
case of language analogous to that of the Apos- 
tles, and as illustrating and confirming the hypo- 
thesis, that our Greek text has been derived 
from the Latin. " First, he said, he loved the 

3 



255 

war, and after the war, he loved the religion and 
the philosophy ;" the commentary on which non- 
sense is as follows : " This use of the article is 
little less decisive that the author thought in 
French (or at least a foreign tongue), and gave a 
version of it, than if he had written the sentence 
in that language," (p. 210.) I say nothing of 
the taste and proper feeling which are displayed 
in the introduction of this " fool-born jest" into 
a serious enquiry on a sacred subject ; but I can- 
not help remarking that both the text and the 
comment, if they had been chosen purposely 
with that intention, could not have been better 
adapted to negative the author's reasoning, and 
to expose the futility of his laboured hypothesis. 
Words cannot shew more plainly that the exist- 
ence of foreign idioms, literally translated, is no 
proof that the writing in which they appear is 
not original ; or that it must have been originally 
composed in the language to which the idioms 
belong, and afterwards translated from it. " The 
author thought in French ; and " himself " gave 
a version of it;" and what can we desire to 
establish in the case of the Apostles, more than 
they thought in Hebrew, or thought in Latin, and 
themselves ■ ' gave a version," or expressed their 
thoughts in Greek ? This is all for which I have 
ever thought it necessary to contend ; that, any 
idiomatic peculiarities belonging to other lan- 
guages notwithstanding, our Vulgate Greek text 



256 

may have been the composition of the Apostles 
themselves. They wrote in Greek, a foreign 
language to them, and Latinisms and Hebraisms 
may prove a mental translation, a clothing of the 
ideas of one language in the words of another, 
effected by the writer himself as he proceeds ; 
but a translation, in the proper acceptation of the 
word, they do not prove, neither argue anything 
against the originality of the writings in which 
they are detected. Besides this, if we must con- 
sider the existence of Latin idioms as an infal- 
lible criterion of a text ignorantly and servilely 
translated from the Latin, what are we to con- 
clude from the Grecisms ? If the origin of our 
text were such as this hypothesis would make 
it, there would prevail in it a uniform character ; 
it would be found uniformly betraying marks of 
being a servile copy of the Latin. But this is 
not the case ; the utmost that can be objected to 
the Apostolic style is that it is a mixed style ; oc- 
casionally exhibiting idioms not purely Greek ; 
but still abounding in phrases, and turns of ex- 
pression, noble, elegant, and classical ; and ex- 
hibiting, in many passages of every book in the 
New Testament, a character to which, wen phi- 
lologically, no objection can be made. This in- 
termixture of barbarisms is easily to be ac- 
counted for, if we consider them as proceeding 
from the Apostles themselves. They wrote the 
Greek language as it was spoken around them ; 



257 

in a state of declension from its original purity, 
occasioned by the contagion of other languages 
then very prevalent in Judea. Such a state of 
things exposed them, as writers, to many dis* 
advantages ; especially to the danger, or rather 
certainty, of occasionally intermingling expres- 
sions offensive to the taste of those who had cul- 
tivated, with greater attention to purity, the lan- 
guage which they employed. But in these cir- 
cumstances there was still room for the native 
genius to appear, and for the intellect to display 
its bent through all the disadvantages of expres- 
sion; and it is often found that a writer thus 
situated, whose mind is not unfurnished, will, 
occasionally, and when strongly excited, express 
himself with a freedom and correctness which 
shall afterwards surprise even himself. But the 
case of a person translating the thoughts of ano- 
ther from their original language, into a language 
with which he is imperfectly acquainted, is to- 
tally different. Experience proves that such a 
person will have no occasional flights of sub- 
limity or eloquence ; correctness will be his 
highest boast, and a level uniformity his prevail- 
ing characteristic. It is therefore inconceivable 
that the beautiful passages which, by the confes- 
sion of all, are scattered throughout the New 
Testament should be the work of men so igno- 
rant at other times, as to make e/c£<£aAaiw<rav out 
of expulerunt, and to suppose that destituti was 

s 



258 

properly translated by aavvcroc. My difficulty 
still increases when, in reading this volume, I 
trace, in every page, the introduction of many 
of the most exquisite peculiarities of the Greek 
language, which, from the very nature of things, 
can have had nothing corresponding with them 
in a Latin text. " Every language," says Leigh, 
" hath indeed its several idioms ; and there is 
still in the original a certain genuina vetustas, a 
peculiar and native elegancy, which cannot be 
well expressed in the translation : so that trans- 
lations are not unfitly compared to the wrong 
side of arras-hangings. This is true likewise in 
the New Testament, where there are many paro- 
nomasias, sweet allusions and cadences of words, 
rich and lofty expressions in the original, which 
the most exquisite translation cannot attain fully 
unto\" By the original, Leigh, as it afterwards 
appears, and was of course to be concluded, 
meant the Greek ; and though, in our present ar- 
gument, I may not assume this point, as he and 
all others have done, I must maintain that the 
originality of the Greek is proved by the pecu- 
liarities which he points out ; the paronomasias, 
cadences and forms of expression peculiarly 
Greek, which cannot have had any thing analo- 
gous to them in a Latin text. To take a few of 
the instances quoted by him ; we have Rom. i. 

x Epis. Ded. to Cr, Sac. 



259 

29. iTopvua Trpvr/oia, ^Sovov <^ovou. Lat. scortatio7ie 9 
improbitate, invidia, cade. Again, v. 31. aawerovq, 
uGvvSeTovg. Lat. Desipientes, fcedifragos. Tit. i. 8. 
^iXoSevov, (pi\aya%v, Lat. Hospitalem, bonorum aman- 
tem. ii. 4. fyiXavSpovg, QiXotzkvovq. Lat. Maritorum 
ac liberorum amantes. 2 Tim. iii. 4. Qik^ovoi pa\- 
Xov r] (piXoSeoi. Lat. Voluptatum amantes, potius 
quam Dei. And Rom. xi. 3. jin v-n-epfypovuv nap* 

o Ssi typovuv' aWa (jypoveiv ug to duxppoveiv. Lat. 

Ne supra modum saplat ultra quam oportet sapere : 
sed saplat ad sobrietatem. Who will be persuaded 
that these marked alliterations proceeded from 
an ignorant and incompetent translator, whereas 
there was nothing in the original to suggest 
them ? The concise and elegant expressiveness 
of these forms in Greek vanishes in every Latin 
translation which I have seen ; and, were we 
even in possession of a Latin text as happily 
paronomastical as the Greek, we should still be 
exposed to this dilemma : if the translators of 
the Latin into Greek were as ignorant as the 
Palaeoromaican hypothesis necessarily supposes 
them to have been, they could not have pos- 
sessed the skill so happily to retain the spirit of 
the Latin original ; if they had the skill to effect 
this, then they could not be so ignorant of Greek 
as to be guilty of the absurdities into which 
they are charged with having fallen in other pas- 
sages of these very same Epistles. Beza, it is 
true, has most admirably expressed eyKpwai n 

s 2 



260 

Gvyicpivai, 2 Cor. x. 12. by adjungere vel conjun- 
gere; and Stephens nearly as well, atropov}xzvoi 
a\X ovk eZaTTopovfxevoi. 2 Cor. iv. 8. by premimur 
non opprimimur. Such Greek might naturally 
suggest such Latin to Stephens and Beza, scho- 
lars and men of genius ; but the reverse opera- 
tion of forming such Greek from such Latin 
would not have been equally easy to the dunces 
whom the author of Palaeoromaica, uncritically 
I must think, if not profanely, supposes to have 
been the authors of our Vulgate Greek text. 
Take another instance, the repetition of the ne- 
gative in Greek : as Matt. xxiv. 21. ovSe ov ^ yer 
vr\Tai. Lat. Neque unquamfiet. Which of these 
two has the greatest appearance of being the 
original ? assuredly that which is beyond com- 
parison the most emphatic : for the loss of em- 
phasis is the natural and inevitable consequence 
of translation. Heb. xiii. 5. ov ^ ere avw, ovS' 
ov [xri <re £y/caraXi7rw. In this are no less than five 
negatives ; as it were to give the stronger assu- 
rance that God will never forsake his people ; 
but what could suggest so many to a translator 
of the Latin sentence Nequaquam te omittam ; ne- 
que unquam te deseram, (or one of similar con- 
struction) in which they do not and cannot ap- 
pear ? especially to a translator, who in other 
parts of this Epistle is supposed to exhibit so 
little acquaintance with Greek as to call ccenum 
Kowov, to express mutatio by txzravoia, participo by 



26! 

nzpiwuTeio, and colluceo by TpayjiXiZw ? If ever in- 
consistency were the ruin of an hypothesis, it 
must surely cast down the one we are examin- 
ing, never to rise again. 

The mention of Greek peculiarities which have 
no correspondence in the Latin, reminds me, 
before 1 conclude, to notice what is said re- 
specting the want of the dual number in the New 
Testament. " There is another feature in the 
Hellenistic style" it is observed (p. 296,) "which 
to me seems to be scarcely explicable except on 
the hypothesis of a version from the Latin. This 
is the want of the dual number.' 1 " It appears to 
me much more probable that the neglect of the 
dual number in the New Testament was owing 
to its being a version from the Latin ; and that 
the inflections, which did not exist in the old 
text, were not thought necessary in the new." 
(p. 297.) In reply to this I must observe, that 
the contrivance of a dual number is a refinement 
of language, which, though it may contribute to 
precision and elegance, is not practically neces- 
sary for purposes of general intercourse. We 
have therefore every reason to believe that the 
employment of it in ordinary life would not be 
adhered to, except in Attica and other places 
where the Greek tongue was spoken with perfect 
purity and correctness. But this was certainly 
not the case in Judea in general ; least of all 
among men of the rank of the Apostles ; who, as 



262 

Salmasius, already quoted, justly remarks, were 
" in Graeco sermone rudes et imperiti," and 
" quales ipsi fuere, tale et loquendi genus habu- 
erunt." This may account for their neglect of 
the dual number, which is a refinement, and 
nothing more than a refinement of language ; 
such as was neither necessary to their wants nor 
likely to prevail in their station. But if " in- 
flections which did not exist in the old (or Latin) 
text were not thought necessary in the new," 
(that is the Greek,) let me beg the author of 
Palaeoromaica to consider how he will account 
for the employment of the middle voice in the 
Greek New Testament. He cannot surely dis- 
pute that the same thing which in Greek is ex- 
pressed by a verb of the middle voice must have 
been expressed by a periphrasis in the old text, 
and by an ignorant translator would undoubtedly 
have been expressed by the same artifice in the 
new. But the fact is that the middle voice not 
only occurs generally in the Greek Testament ; 
but is used in many instances, as they who have 
made this subject their peculiar study have re- 
marked, with a propriety and a significancy 
which no circumlocution in Latin could have 
adequately attained, and which therefore fur- 
nishes a pregnant proof that the text in which 
this occurs cannot be of Latin origin. 

But why, it is argued, may not this be very 
safely conceded, seeing that according to Papias 



263 

St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ; con- 
sequently his Gospel now existing, being in 
Greek, can be no more than a translation ; and 
since this circumstance detracts not from the 
authority of St. Matthew why should the hypo- 
thesis that the entire New Testament exists only 
as a translation detract from its title to acceptance 
and veneration ? (p. 468.) " Let the loss of 
the original Gospel of Matthew y guard us against 

y Here I have omitted the words " let the resurrection (if I 
may so speak) of the writings of Epicurus from Herculaneum," 
because I would not incumber the main question by uniting 
with it another subject of discussion. The destruction of Her- 
culaneum occurred, I think, within fifty years of our Lord's 
ascension ; at which period the Gospel had made so little pro- 
gress among the heathen as to render it not very probable that 
copies of the iVpostolic writings were then existing in that city. 
I do not dwell, however, upon this mistake, if it be one ; be- 
cause it is evident that Herculaneum is used only as a general 
name for a place in which ancient writings have been preserved 
for centuries ; and have afterwards been restored to light. The 
intention of the writer in making such a remark is of more im- 
portance ; and that is, plainly, to insinuate that since, under 
circumstances similar to those of Herculaneum, writings of little 
value have been preserved, while copies of the Gospels or Epis- 
tles were not preserved, it is hence reasonably to be argued that 
the original Gospels and Epistles may not have been at all pre- 
served. But here, from true premises, a false conclusion is 
attempted to be derived. The fallacy may be easily exposed. 
God Almighty appears to have provided for the conservation of 
the Scripture, not by exercising a peculiar providence over the 
fate of each individual copy, but by stamping the writings 
themselves with such a character as to render them objects of 



264 

forming hasty conclusions with respect to the 
mysterious conduct of Providence," (p. 63.) 
" Let it be remembered," says Dr. Campbell, 
" that Papias, in the words quoted from him, 
asserted two things ; that Matthew wrote the 
Gospel ascribed to him, and that he wrote it in 
Hebrew" — " Now," says the author of Palaeoro- 
maica, " I would ask any person of common 
candour how it happens that Papias, who in the 
first of these articles is an authentic testimony 
to the genuineness of St. Matthew's Gospel, 
dwindles, in the second, into a person not to be 
trusted ?" (p. 483.) There is this important 
difference to be remarked between the two parts 
of the testimony of Papias. His first assertion 
that Matthew wrote a Gospel, is confirmed by 
the existence of a writing bearing his name, and 
proved by most satisfactory evidence to be the 
same with that to which Papias alluded. His 

veneration and regard among men ; and, through the agency of 
these feelings, or by the operation of natural causes, to ensure 
such a multiplication of copies, as that, in the ordinary course of 
things, all of them could not perish. It is reasonable to con- 
clude that the Sacred Writings were placed under no stricter 
safeguard than this, because the unlimited prescience of God 
enabled him to foresee that this would effect his purposes. It 
is therefore a gross fallacy to argue that the original writings 
may have perished, because we do not trace any especial agency 
employed to preserve individual copies from ordinary dangers ; 
and because copies of Holy Writ may have perished in cases 
where other less valuable productions have escaped destruction. 



265 

second assertion, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, 
is not confirmed by the appearance of any such 
document, nor by the direct testimony of any 
witness stating that he had actually seen it. The 
two parts of the testimony therefore do not rest 
upon equal authority ; though I am far from im- 
plying that even in the second article Papias is 
" a person not to be trusted." Admitting that 
article to be true, and that St. Matthew wrote in 
Hebrew, there is a reason which may be assigned 
for its disappearance, namely, that the Hebrew 
language speedily fell into total disuse ; and the 
Gospel would therefore have so few readers as 
not to require a multiplication of copies sufficient 
to preserve it in existence. But this reason will 
obviously not apply to Gospels and Epistles 
written in either Greek or Latin. In the next 
place Papias may be a faithful witness, and yet 
there would be no inconsistency in the supposi- 
tion that St. Matthew, having composed his 
work originally in Hebrew, might afterwards 
translate it, as Josephus did, into a more polite 
and accessible language. It is needless to ob- 
serve how different a degree of credit is due to a 
translation executed by the author himself, and 
a translation which is the work of a nameless and 
ignorant person ; such as the Palseoromaican 
theory supposes to have been employed in the 
composition of our Vulgate Text. Lastly, were 
there even no probability that St. Matthew either 



266 

wrote his Gospel originally in Greek, or himself 
translated it into that language, still, if the re- 
maining books of the New Testament be the 
original writings of the Apostles, we have an 
assurance of the fidelity of St. Matthew's trans- 
lator, whoever he were, from the perfect accord- 
ance in every point of importance between his 
version and the remaining books which are not 
translations : an assurance which we obviously 
cannot possess, if the originals of all the books 
have perished, and only translations survive. 
Should an unbeliever object that, if Papias speak 
the truth, we cannot tell of whose composition 
the existing Gospel according to St. Matthew 
may be, we might forbear from deriving any of 
our arguments, for his conviction, from this 
Evangelist, and take our stand in the writings of 
the other Apostles ; which, if original, are per- 
fectly sufficient to uphold the evidences of 
Christianity. But if none of these be original 
what other appeal do we possess ? It is therefore 
very evident that there is the widest possible 
difference between the supposition that one or 
two books exist only as translations, and the 
hypothesis that all the originals have been lost. 

Such an absolute and universal disappearance 
of the originals as is here contemplated must be 
considered as sufficiently guarded against by the 
known reverence of the early Christians for the 
Sacred Books of their religion. Men of humble 



267 

pretensions and of simple minds, as they were, 
might not be able, very possibly, to assign the 
best critical reasons why the original should not 
be superseded by a translation. Nevertheless 
natural feeling would have operated where ar- 
gument failed. The reluctance which individuals 
and communities feel, at parting from that to 
which they have been accustomed, would secure 
the first believers from neglecting that original 
out of which they had, from the beginning, been 
instructed in the principles of their faith. Con- 
tinual use and lengthened recollection naturally 
attach men to particular objects, and make them 
anxious for their preservation, even when those 
objects have little use or value in themselves. 
Would the influence of this feeling, then, be less 
operative in the instance of a possession so 
valuable and important as the original Christian 
Scriptures ? This cause, if there had been no 
other, would have sufficiently guarded those 
writings against the neglect with which the 
author of Palaeoromaica conceives them to have 
been treated ; and it affords a proof of the justice 
of the observation, that no strictly natural feeling 
has been given to us in vain. 

I have called the Apostolical originals valuable 
and important, because to the early Christians 
they were pre-eminently so. Believers, in that 
age, were too much exposed to suffering, on 
account of their faith, to embrace or to adhere 



268 

to it on light and unsatisfactory grounds. But 
their only assurance that they had not done so 
must ultimately rest on the credit due to* the 
Apostles ; and the degree of credit, to which 
they were entitled, could be ascertained only by 
a reference to their own writings. In whatever 
language those writings were drawn up, we must 
suppose it to have been, at the time, and during 
some centuries after to have continued, a living 
language ; and consequently, during that whole 
period, there must have been vast multitudes of 
Christians who could read no other than the 
original. They at least must necessarily have 
adhered to, and thus have preserved it ; because 
to give up the original would be, with all such 
persons, the same thing with giving up the 
Scriptures themselves. Yet, if we suppose the 
Apostolical writings to have disappeared at any ■ 
period within the first century after they were 
promulgated, this must have been submitted to 
not by individuals only, but by entire commu- 
nities ; the members of which were daily hazard- 
ing, nay, often were actually sacrificing, their 
lives and all which was most dear to them, in 
defence of a faith respecting the groundwork of 
which they are represented to have been so neg- 
ligent and indifferent. If we could even suppose 
the Christian Churches to have acted thus in 
opposition to the ordinary principles of human 
conduct, in permitting the Apostolical writings, 



269 

entrusted to their keeping, to perish, some of the 
opposers of Christianity could not have failed to 
make use of an argument which we know that 
none of them ever did employ. ' You Chris- 
tians,' they might have said, ' have taken up a 
religion which cuts you off from honour and emo- 
lument, from country, family, and friends ; which 
exposes you to contempt, reproach, suffering 
and death, on the faith of what ? on the faith of 
what the Apostles of Christ delivered ! And yet, 
having suffered their writings to perish you can- 
not tell, with certainty, what they said. Where 
is the reasonableness of such a faith, and of the 
deportment which you say is founded on it V 
Thus, I think, a heathen might have argued, and 
thus some of them would have argued if it had 
at any time come to their knowledge that the 
original Gospels and Epistles were either lost, or 
could no longer be identified. I may therefore, 
with confidence, appeal to every reader of that 
part of Dr. Lardner's great work, in which he 
relates the substance of the objections raised by 
Celsus against the Christian religion, and of the 
answers to them by Origen z , whether it be pos- 
sible that this early unbeliever, who exhausts his 
scanty resources both of ridicule and argument 
to prove that the grounds of the Christian faith 
are insufficient, should never have made even a 

r Jewish and Heathen Testimon. Vol. II. p. 261 — 354. 



270 

distant allusion to such a fact as the disappear- 
ance of the original text ? a fact by which, if 
it could have been established, the credit of 
Christianity would have been more seriously 
affected than by the vague allegations of Celsus 
and all the other infidels in the universe ten 
times repeated. He attacks the credibility of 
the Evangelists on other grounds ; saying, " I 
could relate many things concerning the affairs 
of Jesus, and those true too, different from those 
written by his disciples a :" and afterwards he 
affirms, " that some of the believers take a 
liberty to alter the Gospel, from the first writing, 
three or four ways, or oftener ; that, when they 
are pressed hard, and one reading has been con- 
futed, they may disown that and flee to ano- 
ther b ." Celsus then confines himself to charg- 
ing the Apostles with delivering an untrue report 
of the actions of Jesus c ; and succeeding be- 
lievers with falsifying the accounts which the 
Apostles had delivered. But he evidently ad- 
mits, that the histories to which he objected 
were " written by the disciples of Jesus;" and 
that " the first writing' (rr?c. ttq^t^q ypa^g, he 



* Ibid. p. 274. . b Ibid. p. 275. 

c It is plain that he had no grounds for this ; because, as Dr. 
Lardner justly remarks, " if he could have contradicted the 
disciples upon good evidence, in any material point, it is not 
easy to believe he would have omitted to do so." 



271 

calls it) was extant in his time. How could he 
otherwise pretend to know that it had been 
altered ? Now this objector is placed by Lard- 
ner, and the Benedictine Editors of Origen, in 
the reign of Marcus Antoninus d ; and it is plain 
that the writings, which he, at this early period, 
speaks of as proceeding from the disciples, were 
either the same, and in the same language, with 
those which we possess under the title of the 
originals, or they were not. If they were the 
same with ours, and Celsus and his contempora- 
ries were deceived in taking these for the origi- 
nals, then we must have recourse to the extra- 
ordinary supposition, that within seventy years 
of the death of St. John, while Polycarp, his 
hearer and disciple was yet alive, all traces of 
the genuine writings of the Apostles were so 
completely obliterated, as to escape the obser- 
vation of this inquisitive collector of whatever 
could tend injuriously to atfect the credit of the 
religion which they preached. If the text of the 
Gospels, which Celsus regarded as the original, 
were not the same with our present Greek, it is 
incumbent on the proposers of such an opinion 
to shew at what period, since the age of Celsus, 
it is possible for the original writings to have 
perished, and for those now existing to have as- 
sumed their name and place. We may with 

d A. D. 161 to 180. 



272 

perfect certainty affirm, that no such substitu- 
tion has happened since the middle of the second 
century ; because, from this period, the evidence 
is taken up by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, 
Tertullian, and a host of witnesses, combining to 
assure us, that the Greek text of their age was 
virtually the same with our own, and that, as 
will be hereafter shewn, it was considered by 
them as the undoubted original of the New Tes- 
tament. Whichever alternative we adopt, (and, 
if the Palaeoromaican hypothesis be true, one or 
the other must be admitted) we shall find our- 
selves beset with insuperable difficulties, and 
under the necessity of making the most impro- 
bable and unauthorised assumptions. In the 
words of one of the closest reasoners, as well as 
best of men, " it would indeed be a sufficient 
answer to the whole to repeat the several suppo- 
sitions which have been made, and to call for the. 
evidence on which they stand : this would plainly 
discover every part of the story to be mere fiction e ." 
But we may advance even beyond this. Were 
it even to be conceded, that the great mass of 
the Christian community, in different countries, 
would give up all care of these records, and be 
contented to possess the Evangelical writings 
only at second hand, and that their adversaries 

e Bishop Sherlock's Trial of the Witnesses, p. 15. Society's 
Ed. 1820. 



273 

would not have objected this against them, can 
ifoi^-feslieved that the same passive acquiescence 
would be displayed by that body of ecclesias- 
tical writers, who, from the second century, 
have made the Sacred Books the objects of 
critical examination ? The early Fathers might 
not be, according to our improved notions, the 
very best of critics ; still it is impossible to be- 
lieve that they could pursue their endeavours to 
elucidate the true sense of the Apostolical Writ- 
ings, upon an infinity of controverted points, and 
yet not one of them ever think of having re* 
course to any other than a translated text, as, 
according to this hypothesis, the Greek is to be 
considered. That they do not appeal to an ori- 
ginal anterior to the Greek, is a proof that no 
such original was, in their age, known to exist ; 
that they do not lament their inability to appeal 
to any such, is a proof that they had never heard 
of its existing in the age before their own ; and 
that they, at this early period, should not have 
heard of it, is, when combined with other argu- 
ments, a sufficient proof that no other original 
than the Greek ever did exist. For state as you 
will " the circumstances which may have con- 
tributed to give the Greek a superiority over the 
Latin text ;" suppose that, in certain situations, 
and for some individuals, a translation might be 
more useful than the original itself, still this will 
not explain how the original could absolutely 

T 



274 

disappear. The world may have been pretty 
equally divided between Greeks and Rea&^ e „ 
or persons using those languages : still, if the 
wants of the one party were accommodated by a 
translation, there was the remaining equally nu- 
merous community, which, by a parity of rea- 
soning, must have preferred and preserved the 
original. I do not feel myself at all concerned 
either to admit or to deny the possibility of 
the supposition made in Palaeoromaica f , that 
" As the Epistles (to the Corinthians) were, 
in some measure, addressed not merely to the 
Corinthians, but to the saints of Achaia, some 
Latin, at the period may have translated them 
into Latin- Greek." Admitting that it were so, 
although we have no evidence of the fact, still 
we are left without any account of what became 
of the original. If the citizens of Corinth, in 
the days of St. Paul, stood in need of a Latin 
Epistle, neither in the days of their children, 
nor even 'of their grandchildren, could the lan- 
guage of the place be so suddenly and so en- 
tirely changed as to render them totally indif- 
ferent as to the preservation of any other than 
this supposed Greek text. The Latin original, 
therefore, could not have fallen into total ob- 
livion, even if every copy of it, which was ever 
taken, had been confined within the walls of 

f P. 331. 



275 

Corinth. But common sense may teach us that 
this could not be the case, and that the preser- 
vation of such a writing could not be dependent 
on the decline, in any one city, nor even in the 
world, of the language in which it was written. 
I will go even farther than the author of Palseo- 
romaica, in admitting that the Epistles to the 
Corinthians were designed for the use and edifi- 
cation not of the inhabitants of that city alone, 
nor even of the saints of Achaia, but of the whole 
Christian world in that and every succeeding 
age. St. Paul himself knew this ; all his disci- 
ples knew it as well as we know it now ; the pe- 
rusal of the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle 
to the Corinthians was alone sufficient to con- 
vince them; and, as far as they were able, 
though their ability might be trifling compared 
with ours, they would seek to extend the know- 
ledge of these universally interesting truths. 
The declaration of St. Peter shews at how early 
a period " the Epistles of his brother Paul ' 
were generally known and read ; and, if we exa- 
mine only those to Rome and Corinth, we shall 
find how active was the intercourse, and the con- 
sequent circulation of intelligence, between the 
churches established in those cities. The ori- 
ginal of the Epistles to the Corinthians, in what- 
ever language written, could not fail of being 
conveyed to Rome by some of the Achaian 
brethren who were continually resorting thither ; 

t2 



276 

and, if written in Latin, there they must have 
been preserved. I must be allowed to acknow- 
ledge myself one who can not " conceive how a 
Latin Epistle of Paul to the Romans (if he wrote 
to them in Latin) may have been much sup- 
planted by, or interpolated from, a Latin version 
from the Greek z .' r This opinion and the reasons 
assigned in support of it are truly worthy of 
each other. " It is well known," (we are told on 
the authority of " a German critic,") " that the 
sentiments of Paul have a striking affinity to those 
of Seneca ; and the style of the Apostolical origi- 
nal seems, from what can be now collected, to 
have had a strong resemblance to that of the 
philosopher. Such a style would, to uneducated 
persons, as the Christians generally were, seem 
(especially when its fashion was over) less easy 
and agreeable than one more simple and barba- 
rous 11 ." The most difficult arguments to con- 
tend with are, beyond all doubt, those which 
have nothing in them ; as beating the air is the 
most laborious and, at the same time, the least 
satisfactory of all exercises. But I would beg 
to enquire, if the Apostolical originals be not ex- 
tant, how we can receive any information, or 
pretend to form any judgment, as to the style 
which prevailed in them ? No one, it might 
have been supposed, above the rank and ac- 

£ P. 340. «« Ibid. 



277 

quirements of a school-boy, would have thought 
of instituting a comparison between the style of 
St. Paul, of one, according to his own avowal, 
" rude in speech," and continually hurried by 
the impulse of strong feeling beyond the bounds 
of correct writing, and the style which prevails 
in the highly ornamented, yet strictly regular 
and correct, productions of the cool, the philo- 
sophic, the fastidious preceptor of the son of 
Agrippina. Neither is it true, that the taste for 
Seneca's fashion of writing did so very quickly 
decay. Quintilian informs us of the admiration 
in which his works continued to be held by the 
youth of a later age ; and of the exertions which 
he himself employed to inculcate a taste for 
purer models 1 . Still, therefore, if St. Paul 

i " Solus hie fere in manibus adolescentium fuit. Quern non 
equidem omnino conabar excutere sed potioribus praeferri non 
sinebam, quos ille non destiterat incessere, cum, diversi sibi 
conscius generis, placere se in dicendo posse quibus illi place- 
rent diffideret. — Cujus et multae alioqui et magnae virtutes fue- 
runt, ingenium facile et copiosum, plurimum studii et multarum 

rerum cognitio multae in eo claraeque sententiae, multa etiam 

morum causa legenda : sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque, at- 
que eo perniciosissima quod abundant dulcibus vitiis." De In- 
stil. Orat. Lib. X. ch. 1. § vi. 4. Quintilian, if he had ever 
read the writings of the Apostles, might think their style cor- 
rupt, as he did that of Seneca. But this discerning critic would 
never have thought of comparing the style of St. Paul, with that 
of a writer whose characteristics were facility, copiousness, an<$ 
laboured arrangement. He would not have laid to the charge 



278 

wrote to the Romans an Epistle in Latin, and to 
the Corinthians two Epistles in the same lan- 
guage, which must have been known in Rome, 
we are left unsatisfied as to any reason which 
could render necessary a translation into Greek, 
for the sole purpose, as it would appear, of being 
retranslated into Latin. Above all, we have no 
answer yet given to the most important of all 
questions, What became of the original ? If not 
preserved at Rome, which is in itself incredible, 
still it must have been in many other places. 
■ ( Greek, from the age of Hadrian," very possibly 
" began to gain the ascendancy over Latin k ;" 
but Latin was not instantly extirpated as a liv- 
ing language. The speech of Rome, though 
gradually declining, continued still to be very 
extensively employed ; as the writings of Sueto- 
nius, Apuleius, Justin, and many others testify ; 
and shot forth occasional gleams of great bril- 
liancy into that night which threatened, for seve- 
ral centuries before it was able to accomplish, 
its final extinction. The churches of Africa, in 
which, from the age of Tertullian to that of Au- 
gustin, the Latin language was used, would 

of any one of the Apostles, that his writings abounded with 
charming defects ; or have insinuated, as he does a little lower 
down respecting those of Seneca, that they were calculated to 
win the admiration of boys rather than to satisfy men of inform 
mation and judgment. 

k P. 332, 



279 

alone have sufficed for the preservation of a Latin 
original, if there had ever been any such original 
in existence 1 . Tertullian was much connected 

" In Africa, auctores habemus nobilissimos, Tertullianum 
Cyprianum, Augustinum ; qui omnes in Africa nati, in Africa 
vixerunt, Afris vel scripserunt vel concionati sunt. Tertullianus 
suum de Pallio librum, nonne in Africanorum gratiam edidit, 
apud quos id vestimenti in scomma abierat ut Christianos appel- 
larent ypdiKovg emOsrag Graecos impbstores ? Et quos ex eo- 
dem libello constat a Romanis togam esse mutuatos, neget ali- 
quis linguam ? Quid quod ad uxorem scripsit, non Africe sed 
Latine ? ad mulieres de habitu, ad faeminas de cultu, ad virgines 
de velo ? Et quidem, ut notes, non quemadmodum docti solent 
de quibusvis rebus in musaeo commentari, quae postea non nisi 
docti legant pauci que ; sed ad eas ipsas directo sermone, ut in 

earum gratiam scripta scias Cyprianus quoties scripsit ad 

Clerum, quoties ad Martyras, quoties ad plebem ? Scripsit au- 
tem non Latine tantum, sed eleganter. Haec Carthagine, Africae 
Metropoli, ubi orabat etiam Apuleius Latine, quam poterat elo» 
quentissime. Et Quis vestrum (clamabat 1. Floridorum) unum 
miki solcecismum ignoveritl Quis vel unam syllaham barbare 
pronunciatam donaverit ? Quis incondita et vitiosa verba temere, 
quasi delirantibus oborientia, permiserit blaterare ? — Augustinus 
suos Hipponenses non docebat nisi Latine. Extant infiniti ejus 
tractatus et sermones, quos ad et infimorum hominum captum 
accommodabat. Quo fructu si Latine loquentem aut nemo, aut 
soli docti essent assecuti? — Sed non est necesse conjecturas 
sectari, cum habeamus locupletissimum ejusdem testimonium : 
Lib. I. Retractat. c. 20. Volens, inquit, causam Donatistarum 
ad ipsius humillimi vulgi, et omnino imperitorum atque idiotarum 
notitiam pervenire t et eorum t quantum Jieri posset per nos, inha- 
rere memories t Psalmum qui eis caneretur per Latinas liter as feci. 
Et paulo post, Ideo autem non aliquo carminis genere id Jieri 
volui, ne me necessitas metrica ad aliqua verba quce sunt minus 



280 

with Rome, and well versed in the history of its 
church m ; from which he affirms that his own de- 
duced its authority for the Scriptures which it 
possessed n . These Scriptures, as his quotations 
from them shew, were in Latin ; yet, as we shall 
hereafter see, he repeatedly and explicitly speaks 
of them as having been translated from the 
Greek. It may be very true, that the church 
established in Africa " furnished many members 
of the Greek church, " after the destruction of 
copies during the persecution of Dioclesian, 
" with versions made from their Latin Scrip- 
tures ." But if those Latin Scriptures were dif- 
ferent from the Latin translation made use of by 
Tertullian, if they were wholly or in part the 
originals, what has become of them ? The fur- 
nishing of twenty versions to twenty different 
churches, in as many different languages, would 
not make the original itself less necessary to the 
Africans, much less would it occasion, and there- 
fore much less does it account for, its total dis- 

nsltata compelleret. Hie mihi tria nota. Primum Augustino 
Psalmum esse compositum in gratiam quorumcunque imperito- 
rura : secundum compositum esse vocibus usitatissimis, vitatis 
minus usitatis : tertium Latinis literis. Hinc verd quis non 
concludat ipsis etiam imperitis hominibus in Africa voces literas 
que, id est sermonem Latinum, fuisse usitatum, fuisse itaque cog-, 
nitum ?" Chamier. Panstr. Cath. Vol, I. p, 201. 

m Euseb. E.H. II. 2. 

f De Praescr. Haer* c. 3§, 

! P. 330. 



281 

appearance. Our Greek Vulgate survives in 
company with the innumerable translations which 
are confessedly derived from it; and the origi- 
nal Latin Scriptures, if any such there had been, 
must have been still less likely to disappear from 
the ritual of a church, which, to the age of 
Augustin and even beyond it, continued to em- 
ploy the Latin language. Above all, when or 
how could they escape from the custody of the 
Church of Rome, which has been constant in 
two acknowledgments, First, that the New 
Testament shall be read only in Latin ; secondly, 
that the Latin which is authentically sanctioned 
by her, is a translation from the Greek ? The 
same vice, in fact, runs through all the reason- 
ings of Palseoromaica ; the loss of the original 
is not accounted for; and to hide this defect, 
cases are brought forward as similar, which fail 
in the very point where the resemblance ought 
especially to hold. Thus, for instance, it is re- 
marked, U we have an instance completely in 
point in the Septuagint. The early Fathers of the 
church, with the exception of Origen, consi- 
dered the Hebrew as perfectly superseded by 
the Greek version; and doubtless, but for the 
Jews, the former would be no longer extant p ." 
This is surely a bold assumption ! but admit it ; 
$yhat then ? We should still have abundance of 

I P. 133. 



282 

evidence, as much in fact as we have now, to 
assure us that a Hebrew original, though lost, 
had once existed ; and that the Greek was only a 
translation from it. But, in the case to which 
this is put forth as parallel, we are required to 
believe not only that the original has perished, 
but that no single writer has made the slightest 
mention of its existence either before or since q . 
The true question, I repeat, is not, as in Palaeoro- 
maica it is assiduously represented to be, whether 
any original writing could perish, and a trans- 
lation, or retranslation, be unsuspectedly received 
in its place. The original Simplicius lay hid during 
many years, and might almost, even now, perish 
a second time without being missed ; but this 
instance, though much insisted on, is not in point. 
We have to consider, whether it be possible 
that writings of such a character, so extensively 
known and so profoundly venerated, as the 
Apostolical originals must have been, could, by 
any combination of possible events, totally dis- 

q The same defect of parallelism in the important point, is 
visible in the instance of " the correspondence of the Duke of 
Shrewsbury." Mr. Coxe has published King William's Letters 
in an English translation, keeping the original out of sight ; but 
then he tells us, that such an original was in being, or " that the 
king's letters were written in French." (Pal, p. 333.) So if the 
New Testament had been written in any other language than 
Greek, though the original were withdrawn, we must, from 
some quarter or other, still have heard of it. 



283 

appear ; much more whether they could so dis- 
appear as to escape absolutely from the notice and 
recollection of the world; so as that not only no 
single fragment of them should survive, but that 
no mention of them, nor the remotest, allusion to the 
fact of their having ever existed, should be found 
in any of the writers, heretical or orthodox, who, 
from the beginnings of Christianity, have made 
the Sacred Text and its history the subject of 
their voluminous commentaries. 

But neither, it is objected, do any of these 
early writers express a distinct belief, that the 
Apostles wrote in Greek. " As to the language 
in which the books of the New Testament were 
originally written, we have, I believe, no histo- 
rical evidence till towards the conclusion of the 
fourth century r ." This, as I shall presently 
shew, is not a correct representation. But, even 
if it were, would there be any difficulty in ex- 
plaining it ? The absence of all historical evi- 
dence can be fairly taken as a ground for disput- 
ing a particular fact, only where there is a suf- 
ficient reason for thinking that, if the fact were 
as is alleged, all evidence would not be wanting. 
But here the very notoriety of the fact, that the 
Gospels and Epistles were originally written in 
Greek, may be, and probably is, the reason of 
our possessing no distinct attestation of it. It 

¥ P. 63, 



284 

might never enter into the mind of a writer in 
the second or third centuries, that it could be 
necessary to bear testimony to a fact which 
never had been, and, he might reasonably think, 
never would be, disputed ; and consequently 
the silence of the early Fathers and Heretics 
leads to no inference whatever against our po- 
sition, that the Apostles wrote in Greek. I will 
not go so far as to affirm, that their silence, on 
the other hand, as to the existence of any ante- 
rior text, directly proves that there never was 
any earlier than the Greek ; but it at least shews 
that, in their opinion, there never was, and it 
will be difficult to persuade reflecting men that, 
upon such a point, they could be deceived. 

I do not, as will hereafter be seen, either want 
or intend to appeal to the testimony of the 
Fathers of the first century, to establish the main 
position here contended for. Still, though it be 
an interruption of the direct enquiry, it is neces- 
sary to correct a misrepresentation, occurring in 
Palseoromaica s , of what" that testimony really is. 
*' The hypothesis of «, Latin original," we are 
informed, " appears to account for a circum- 
stance, which has been urged as an objection 
against our Canonical Books — the neglect of 
them by Greek writers till towards the close of 
the second century." With what propriety, or 

• P. ail. 



285 

fairness, it can be said that the Canonical Books 
are neglected by the Apostolical Fathers, it is not 
in my power to discover. If the existing writ- 
ings, which claim to be those of the first cen- 
tury, and bear the names of Barnabas, Clement, 
Hermas, and Polycarp, be genuine, then it is not 
true 'that the Canonical Books were neglected ; 
because, as the labours of Dr. Lardner shew, 
these writings abound with allusions to, or direct 
quotations from, every Book in the New Testa- 
ment. If the genuine works of the immediate 
followers of the Apostles have perished, as the 
author of Palaeoromaica supposes, and those 
which now bear their names are forgeries of a 
later date, then he is assuming what he cannot 
prove, when he says, that they neglected the 
Canonical Books ; because it is plain, that nei- 
ther he, nor any other person, can tell what they 
said. But, he proceeds, appearing to think his 
own assertion to be a sufficient evidence of the 
fact. " I say it has been a subject of no little 
surprise, that our Canonical Gospels and Epis- 
tles are not taken notice of by any Greek writer 
till towards the close of the second century ; and 
this has furnished objections to their genuine- 
ness and authenticity *." Now, as I have before 
observed, if we possess the genuine works of 
those writers who lived in the first century, and 

; p. 324. 



286 

the early part of the second, it is not true that 
they take no notice of the Canonical Books ; if 
we possess them not, it must always remain 
doubtful what their testimony amounted to, and 
what was the nature of it. But there is a writer 
of the middle of the second century, a Greek 
writer, whose works are undoubtedly genuine, 
whose highly important testimony must not be 
thus lightly set aside. I mean Justin Martyr. 
" It is to be observed," continues the objector, 
" that, with the exception of the Memoirs of the 
Apostles, and the Apocalypse, Justin cites or refers 
to no other books of the New Testament u ." 
" These Memoirs of the Apostles," it is afterwards 
added, " were not our present Gospels ;" and 
the authority of " a German critic" is again 
adduced in support of the opinion, that Justin 
took his quotations from the Gospel according to 
the Hebrews, The words of Justin himself seem, 
utterly irreconcileable with both these opinions ; 
for he distinctly affirms, that the aTrofxvYjfJLovevfxara, 
or Memoirs, which he possessed and quoted, were 
written by the Apostles, and that they were called 
Gospels x ; using the plural in both instances, as 
if he spoke not of a single document, like the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews, but of several, 



u P. 312. 

* <! Oi A7ro<JToX.oi, iv toiq yevo/ievoig vk aVTW aTto\ivr\\kQVtv\i<iGiv a 
KaXeiTcii jvayyeXia, ovrwc iraptdwKctv" 



287 



written by different authors. It need not be 
disputed that he used, in addition to our pre- 
sent Gospels, some of the unauthorised histories 
of our Lord, which existed, we know, in the first 
ages, and gradually fell into disuse after the 
Canon was settled, and that from these may 
have been derived those quotations which are 
not found in the writings of the Evangelists. 
But no one, I think, who reviews the extracts 
from Justin, given by Lardner and Paley, can 
hesitate to acquiesce in the conclusion of Dr. 
Jortin, at least to this extent, that " his cita- 
tions from the four Gospels — and from the Re- 
velation, shew to a demonstration, that he had 
them as we now have them in the main y ." 

There is another testimony, which, though of 

1 Rem, on Eccl. Hist, Vol. I. p. 214. ed. 1805. As an ex- 
ample of Justin's mode of quotation, let the following be taken : 
sv yap tolq a7roixvT]fjt,ov6viia<nv a (prjfu vtto tiov cnrocFToXojv kcli tojv 
zkuvoiq 7rapaKoXov0ij<ravTiov ovvTirayQai, Xeyerat otl i( idpcog w(7£i 
^pofitoi /eare%£iro, avrov tvxopsvov" kcli Xeyovrog " TrapeXOerto, ft 
dvvarov, to noTTipiov tovto." Dial, cum Trypho Jud. From this 
it appears evidently that Justin had read the accounts of the 
Agony in the Garden by St. Matthew (xxvi. 39.) and St. Luke 
(xxii. 44.) He appears also to affirm, that the Memoirs or 
Gospels, which he quoted, were written by the Apostles, and by 
those (ticuvoig 7rapaKoXov9t](ravTcov) who attended on them ; mean- 
ing thereby to designate St. Luke in particular, by this obvious 
allusion to his employment of the same word (TrapcucoXovOeio) in 
his description of himself, and of the sources from which he de- 
rived his acquaintance with the actions of Christ. 



288 

later absolute date than that of Justin, yet af- 
fords convincing proof how long before his time 
the principal Books in the Canon were known, 
and referred to ; and above all, how incorrect 
and unguarded is the assertion of Palaeoromaica, 
that " Irenceus is the very earliest writer, now 
extant, by whom they are expressly cited," (p. 
313.) The document here alluded to, is the 
Epistle from the churches of Lyons and Vienne to 
those of Lydia and Phrygia, giving an account of 
the martyrdom of their aged Bishop, Pothinus, 
and of many other members of their commu- 
nion 2 . (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. c. 1 — 2.) 
" In this Epistle," says Dr. Paley % " are exact 
references to the Gospels of Luke and John," (to 

* This most interesting account of the almost incredible re- 
solution, which these early martyrs opposed to the diabolical 
cruelty of their persecutors, was written, I think, in Greek ; be- 
cause Eusebius merely observes, in introducing it, " we will 
subjoin their words :" whereas, when he gives a translation, he 
is in the habit of mentioning it. For instance, he does so in 
citing a passage from Tertullian (Eccl. H. II. 2.) and more dis- 
tinctly where, quoting from Justin s the Rescript of Adrian^ in 
favour of the Christians, he says, " we have translated it, as 
we could, into Greek." (lb. IV. 8.) I mention this to shew 
how vain is the notion, that in all the Roman colonies Latin was 
spoken ; and that Irenseus, who succeeded Pothinus, " must 
have instructed his flock in Latin, or perhaps Celtic." (Palceor. 
p. 314.) The name of Pothinus is Greek ; and, among his com- 
panions in martyrdom, we find mention made of Attalus of Per- 
gamusy and of Alexander a Phrygian. 

% Evidences, Part I. ch, ix, Sec, i. § ix. 



289 

the latter twice) " and to the Acts of the Apos- 
tles." To which I may add, there are also pre- 
cise quotations from the Epistles — to the Ro- 
mans viii. 18. — First to Timothy vi. 13. — to the 
Philippians ii. 6. — to the Colossians i. 18. — and 
from the Revelation xxii. 1 1 . This testimony is 
not only valuable in itself, but, in consequence 
of the great age of Pothinus, (as the narrative 
informs us upwards of ninety years,) it is equiva- 
lent to an attestation of much earlier date. Po- 
thinus, by his dignified submission to martyr- 
dom in the cause of Christianity, placed the sin- 
cerity of his belief above all suspicion ; and that 
belief could be founded only on his conviction, 
that the Christian Scriptures received by his 
church, and received by them, it appears, in 
Greek, were the genuine productions of the 
Apostles, and had been received as such from 
the earliest period of his remembrance. This, it 
is unnecessary to state, carries us back to the 
age of those who had conversed with the Apos- 
tles, and had been placed by them in the govern- 
ment of the Church of Christ. 

But to return from this digression, to the en- 
quiry concerning the original language of the 
Apostles. My reference is purposely made to 
the writers of the second and third centuries, com- 
mencing with Irenseus ; not so much because an 
attempt to vindicate the authenticity of the writ- 
ings, attributed to the Apostolical Fathers and 

u 



290 

their immediate successors, would involve us irs- 
a long and somewhat difficult enquiry, as be- 
cause I see that such an enquiry would be use- 
less with any view of applying their testimony 
to the refutation of Palaeoromaica. I may my- 
self be convinced that the First Epistle of Clemens, 
for instance, is authentic, because Dionysius, 
Bishop of Corinth within less than a century of 
the age of Clemens, testifies that an Epistle, 
bearing his name, had been wont to be read in 
that church from ancient times ; and because, if 
the Epistle which we possess were not the 
genuine, but were a forgery of a later age, it 
would unquestionably have contained more nu- 
merous and more direct quotations from the 
writings of the New Testament b . But suppose 
this Epistle admitted to be genuine. If we at- 
tempted from this to prove, that St. Paul's first 
Epistle to the Corinthians was written in Greek, 
because a quotation from it in that language oc- 
curs in the Epistle of Clemens, the reply of my 
adversary might be, But how can you prove that 
the Epistle of Clemens itself was not originally 

b " De Friore Epistola si quaeratur au sit Authentica ; ei sane 
omnia Authentic indicia adsunt. In ilia enim non violatur 
temporis ratio. Nihil contra Ecclesiae Disciplinam instituitur. 
Nihil contra Doctrinam Christianam praecipitur. Stylus ac di- 
cendi methodus proxime accedunt ad Nov. Test, neque aliquid, 
quod non est maxime viro Apostolica dignum in ea reperitur," 
Henr, Wotton. in Epiet* Clement, Prcefat, p, ccvi, 



291 

written in Latin, and, at some unascertained 
period, translated into Greek ? To negative this 
possibility, which must however be done before 
the writings of the first century can be applied 
to establish our conclusion, would be more trou- 
blesome and less satisfactory, than to vindicate 
at once the originality of the Greek New Testa- 
ment. But the ecclesiastical writers, who flou- 
rished between the middle of the second and the 
close of the fourth century, are differently cir- 
cumstanced. No design can be entertained, I 
presume, in any quarter, of maintaining that 
such of their works as now exist in Greek were 
all originally composed in Latin ; nor indeed 
would this affect the argument which I design to 
found upon them : that is, an argument to prove 
the general and uninterrupted persuasion, enter- 
tained by the Church at large, respecting the 
original language employed by the Apostles. 

To begin then with Gregory of Nyssa ; it is 
evident that when he criticises the style of St. 
Paul*, and enters into an examination of his 
phraseology, he must be fully persuaded that St. 
Paul's own wirings, and not translations of them, 
are the subjects of his animadversions. When 
he asked, for example, " Whence did he borrow 
his peculiar sense of f-Kzvwctv ? who shall condemn 
him for his use of o^Etpo^cvoi v^wv ? How are 

e See Pal&or-om. p. 156. 

u2 



292 

7T£p7r(pevo^ai and epiOeia taken by him to signify 
such and such things ?" When he asked these 
questions, he must have felt assured, that ekevio- 
<tev, and the rest, were terms employed by St. 
Paul himself: in other words, that this Apostle 
composed in Greek the writings in which those 
terms appear. But it is objected, " accurate 
critical ideas, with respect to the comparative 
values of originals and translations, are the re- 
sult of a state of literature considerably advanced. 
In fact they scarcely exist at any period except 
among critics by profession d ." Now Gregory of 
Nyssa was a critic by profession ; and what is 
still more to the purpose, a verbal critic. As a 
man even of common understanding and probity, 
he would surely not have proceeded to animad- 
vert on the style of St. Paul's compositions, un- 
less he had been satisfied that they were the 
actual writings of the Apostle, in his own lan- 
guage, on which he was commenting. That he 
considered the Greek text as entitled to this 
character, is therefore a conclusion indisputably 
to be drawn from the manner in which he speaks 
of it ; and the same as evidently appears from 
the general character of his critical observations. 
It will be sufficient to adduce a single instance. 
As early as the age of Gregory, and perhaps be- 
fore, doubts had been entertained respecting the 

d P. 332. 



293 

authenticity of the last twelve verses in the con- 
cluding chapter of St. Mark's Gospel. The 
ground of the objection to this clause was that, 
by retaining it, an apparent inconsistency with 
the accounts of the other Evangelists was occa- 
sioned. Now it is worthy of remark that, to set 
the sense of the passage in its true light, Gregory 
has recourse to the Greek text alone, and shews 
how, by a different punctuation of that, the dis- 
sonance complained of might be removed e . It 
is to the Greek text alone he refers, as if this 
were competent definitively to decide whether 

e " E Codicibus istius aevi, memorat primus jam (quod sciam) 
Gregorius Nyssenus nonnullos, in quibus Evangelium Marci 
finitum erat ad Capitis 16 li v. 8 vi verba ista, e<po%owro yap. Hos 
aKpitearepovc vocat, seu notae praestantioris : unde palam quid 
senserit de seqq. duodecim versiculis qui concludunt Evange- 
lium. Et tamen ex istis citat alicubi nonnulla Nyssenus, modum 
que insuper tradit solvendse difficultatis istius, cujus causa (par- 
tim) facta videtur haec ipsa mutilatio. Verba sc. Avclgtclq fc 
vpuil irpcoTy <ra££arov ifavr}, &c. ita Ol'dinata vult, ut ad avaorcLQ 
h ponatur hypostigme ; sequentia vero, Trpui 7rpwry aa£€arov, 
referantur ad Kpavn ; sic enim Christus resurrexerit ante primam 
Sabbati, sive nocte earn praecedente (quomodo o^t <ra€6arwi/, 
Matt, xxviii. 1. recte omnino interpretatur Nyssenus) ac primo 
mane diei proxime sequentis, seu irpurrig aatiarov, apparuerit 
Marias Magdalenae. De hac verborum istorum distinctione 
cum nihil cogitassent temerarii quidam censores, et vero magnis 
circa tempus resurrectionis Christi, atque alia aliqua, difficult^.- 
tibus sese implicatos vidissent — eo processere ut ista, tanquam 
repugnantia caeteris Evangeliis, et D. Marco indigna, Codicibus 
eradenda arbitrarentur." Millii. Proleg, p. 77. 



294 

the passage were written by St. Mark or not. 
Now it is plain that, unless the Greek had been 
universally acknowledged as the original, he 
would not have done so ; for, if it had been 
known or suspected that there was, or ever had 
been, any antecedent text from which the Greek 
was translated, the question must at least have 
been raised as to what the reading of that origi- 
nal was. An appeal to this might have shewn 
the emendation of the learned Father, to be 
either unnecessary or unsatisfactory ; the ambi- 
guity, which he sought to remove by a different 
punctuation, might either not exist in the origi- 
nal, or, if it did exist, might not have admitted of 
removal by the simple process which he adopted 
with respect to the Greek. Neither, in esti- 
mating the importance to be attached to the per- 
suasions of Gregory of Nyssa, respecting the 
language employed by St. Paul, must it be for- 
gotten that he had the advantage of living in the 
neighbourhood of many of the churches to which 
that Apostle had directed his Epistles. He must, 
unavoidably, have had many opportunities of 
communicating with Ephesus, Colossse, and Ga- 
latia ; where the Christians, though often perse- 
cuted, had never been extirpated, nor even so 
totally scattered as to interrupt the course of 
tradition with respect to the language in which 
St. Paul had addressed them. The remarks of 
Gregory are therefore highly valuable, as they 



295 

farnish us with presumptive evidence that, in his 
age, the general persuasion of the churches in 
Asia was, that St. Paul wrote to them in Greek. 
The date of his evidence is, I admit, not much 
earlier than that of Jerome and Augustin ; con- 
cerning which it is questioned, whether " asser- 
tions so late can be entitled to the name of evi- 
dence' ;' : and again, " the assertions of Jerome 
and Augustin (writers of the fourth and fifth 
centuries), are matters not of evidence, but of 
opinion *." As evidences o/'an opinion, that is 
of one uniform persuasion, existing in the ages 
preceding their own, that the Sacred Writings 
had been preserved in the original language, the 
testimonies of Jerome and Augustin are entitled 
to the highest respect. Jerome was, no less than 
Gregory of Nyssa, a critic by profession h ; a man 
of bold, penetrating genius, and of indefatigable 
industry ; who had travelled principally with a 
view of perfecting his acquaintance with the 

• P. 63. * P. 356. 

b " Jerome has many excellent things, and is the only Father 
who can be called a critic on the Sacred Writings." Letters 
from a late eminent Prelate. Let. 25. Bishop Warburton should 
have been satisfied with calling Jerome the best t or the most 
learned, without setting him up as the only critic among the 
Fathers : remembering, that Quamvis est omnis hyperbole ultra 
jidem, non tamen esse debet ultra modum »• nee alia magis vid in 

KdKoZrjKiav itur. 



296 

genuine text of the Scriptures ; and the nature of 
whose researches necessarily brought under his 
inspection the most ancient manuscripts in which 
that text was preserved. Were it even possible 
to suppose that all the copies of the Apostolical 
autographs had perished in the comparatively 
short period of three centuries and a half, it is 
still inconceivable that, in some of the churches 
which he visited, Jerome should not have met 
with some traditionary accounts that such manu- 
scripts, containing such a text, had formerly 
existed. For the purpose of tracing such ac- 
counts, indeed, it could scarcely be necessary to 
visit any church in particular ; because, if such 
a persuasion had any where prevailed, it must 
have been universally known. Believers then, 
as now, formed, in a certain sense, one commu- 
nity, among the members of which, if uniformity 
of sentiment on all theological points did not 
prevail, there was still such a circulation of in- 
telligence upon points connected with the tra- 
ditional history of their faith, that no question of 
importance could be agitated in any one quarter, 
without gradually exciting attention in all the 
rest. The testimonies of Clemens Alexandri- 
nus, of Tertullian, of Gregory, of Jerome, and of 
Augustine are, I repeat, valuable as evidences of 
a widely- diffused, uniform, and unbroken per- 
suasion, existing among Christians from the be- 



297 

ginning ; they assure us of their own sentiments, 
and lead us, by a kind of induction, to those of a 
much earlier period. 

The testimonies of the two first mentioned 
Fathers it will be proper to examine somewhat 
more minutely, and it will be found that they 
coincide strictly with the rest, and thus carry 
back the persuasion, in favour of the originality 
of the Greek, to an era much less distant from 
that of the Apostles. The experience of Cle- 
ment of Alexandria was not acquired solely in 
his own province ; he had travelled, and had 
been every where a careful observer of eccle- 
siastical antiquity, as handed down by tradition. 
From Eusebius we learn, that Clement had had 
an opportunity of hearing many illustrious men, 
" who handed down a true traditionary report 
of that blessed doctrine which they had before 
received from the holy Apostles, Peter, James, 
John, and Paul, as a son from his father i ." It is 
a necessary conclusion, that these predecessors 
of Clemens must have known, and that from 
them he also must have learned, in what lan- 
guage the Apostles wrote. But on the same 
authority we are informed, that Clemens affirmed 
the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written 
originally by St. Paul in Hebrew, for the use of 
the circumcision ; and carefully translated by 

i Eccl. HisL V. 11. 



298 

St. Luke into Greek for dispersion among the 
Gentiles. From which cause it arose, that the 
style of this Epistle bore a strong resemblance 
to that of the Acts of the Apostles. This decla- 
ration of Clemens is important in many points 
of view. First, as it contradicts the bold asser- 
tion, that we have no evidence, concerning the 
language in which the Books of the New Tes- 
tament were written, till towards the close of 
the fourth century. Here is a witness, of two 
hundred years' earlier date, who professes to 
have heard from an elder of the age preceding 
his own, that the Acts of the Apostles, supposed 
with great probability to have been written at 
Rome, were composed in Greek ; and that another 
of the Canonical Books was translated, under 
the sanction of the author, into the same language, 
to facilitate its circulation among the Gentiles. 
Clemens, it is farther observable, does not think 
it necessary formally to assert, much less does he 
attempt to prove, as, if there had ever been any 
question concerning it, he probably would have 
done, that the Acts of the Apostles were written 
by St. Luke in Greek ; but he alludes to it as to 
a fact so universally known and admitted, in his 
age, that it might be taken for granted. It may 
be objected, that unless we here admit that the 
original Epistle to the Hebrews was written in 
Hebrew, and has therefore perished, Clemens in 
this instance furnishes us with a false tradition, 



299 

and may therefore do the same in the other case 
of the original language of the Acts of the Apos- 
tles. But this objection, which strives to make 
it appear that, if one tradition be false, the same 
inference may be drawn with respect to any 
other tradition preserved by the same communi- 
cant, assumes that all traditions, or all parts of 
the same tradition, are equally credible. This is 
not true ; but the separate evidence for each 
must be carefully weighed. If there be visible 
traces of an uninterrupted tradition in one direc- 
tion, without any traces of a contradictory tradi- 
tion in the opposite, the opinion which is thus sup- 
ported has the highest possible degree of moral 
evidence in its favour. This is the case with 
respect to the opinion, that the original language 
of the New Testament in general was Greek. But 
where there are two opposing traditions, each 
supported by its distinct evidence, the argu- 
ments on both sides must have their due weight 
assigned to them, and the decision must be 
formed according as the balance, in fair and 
equitable hands, shall appear to incline. This 
is the case with respect to the tradition, asserted 
by Clemens, but contradicted by others, that the 
Epistle to the Hebrews was written first in 
Hebrew, and afterwards translated into Greek. 
It is therefore very possible that one of the par- 
ticulars recorded by Clemens may be false, and 
yet the certainty of the other be in no respect 



300 

impaired. It is of more importance to remark 
that, by adopting and repeating this tradition 
respecting the last-mentioned Epistle, and by 
what he says respecting the Acts, Clemens 
proves, that in his own age and in that of Maca- 
rius who preceded him, the prevalent persuasion 
was that Greek was the language generally em- 
ployed by the original writers of the New Tes- 
tament. Ha# it been otherwise, he would hardly 
have passed over so natural an occasion for 
noticing it, and for explaining why, in adopting 
this language, St. Luke and St> Paul deviated 
from the general usage of their brethren. 

This same persuasion, the general prevalence 
of which is thus implied in the works of Clemens 
Alexandrinus, is even more distinctly marked in 
those of his contemporary, Tertullian. In the 
celebrated passage wherein he uses the phrase 
" authenticcB liter ce k ," I will not affirm that he 
means by these words to describe the Aposto- 
lical autographs ; although, in the passage quoted 
by Mr. Nolan from Cyprian, the disciple of 
Tertullian, the words " epistolam authenticam" 

k Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas]ipsae adhuc ca- 
thedrae Apostolorum suis locis president, apud quas, ipsae au- 
thenticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et repraesen- 
tantes faciem uniuscujusque, &c." De Prcescr. adv. Hceret. c. 
xxxvi. p. 215. See the passage also in Palceoromaica, p. 58. 
Note 12 ; and in Mr. Nolan's Inquiry into the Integrity of the 
Greek Vulgate, p. 115. Note 14. 



301 

unquestionably mean that identical epistle which 
came from the hand of the writer. The words 
of Tertullian must, however, be at least allowed 
to mean " letters in the original language;" copies 
not translations. How indeed can any other 
words than those which the writer himself actu- 
ally employed, be said to " sound forth his 
voice" as if he were actually speaking, or to 
" represent his image" as if he were personally 
present ? Above all, why should Tertullian direct 
his enquirer to Philippi, to Ephesus, to Corinth, 
and to Rome, to satisfy himself of the authen- 
ticity of the Epistles addressed to those churches, 
if the writings, which he was there to hear 
recited, were translations only ? The same satis- 
faction might have been, with more ease, ob- 
tained nearer home. But he directs him to 
t( the Apostolical churches," because there he 
might hear the very words of the Apostles re- 
cited, if not from the actual autographs, at least 
from copies, the correctness of which could be 
no where so satisfactorily attested as in the bo- 
som of those churches which, at no very distant 
period, had received the original Epistles from 
the Apostles by whom they were written. The 
lowest supposition, therefore, makes these " au- 
thentic letters" to be letters couched in the origi- 
nal language ; as I have said before, copies not 
translations; from which last the words seem 
designed indeed emphatically to distinguish 



302 



them; and that this original language, in Ter- 
tullian's opinion, was Greek, is manifestly shewn 
by his practice, when the original is named, of 
calling it uniformly " authenticum GRiECUM 



i » 



1 " Hanc (Ratlonem) Greed, authentico Evangelio usi, Xoyov 
dicunt ; quo vocabulo etiam Sermonem appellamus." Adv. Prax. 
c. v. — " Sciamus plane non sic esse in Grceco authentico, quo- 
modo in usum exivit." De Monogam. c. xi. This latter pas- 
sage must not pass without observation, as Sender {Append, 
Observatt. in Wetsten. Prolegom. p. 588.) strives to shew, that 
authenticum here means only a less corrupt Latin copy, and that 
grcecum is a marginal gloss, erroneously admitted into the text. 
The author of Palseoromaica also, from an undue reliance on 
Sender's authority, does Tertullian the injustice of imputing to 
him that, in pretending to correct the Latin by the Greek, he 
had recourse to " a mere subterfuge for a controversial pur- 
pose." If Semler had even established his opinion, that' Tertul- 
lian had never seen a Greek MS., the testimony of this early 
Father would become so much the more valuable to us, inas- 
much as it would then be more manifest, even than it now is, 
that in applying the title of original to the Greek New Testa- 
ment, he relied not on his own judgment, but spoke, merely in 
the character of a witness, the general persuasion of his age. 
Semler, however, has not sustained his opinion by convincing 
arguments ; and, when the words of Tertullian are correctly 
given, it will appear that his appeal to the Greek was very per- 
tinent and judicious. The passage of Scripture to which he al- 
ludes, is 1 Cor. vii. 39. " Mulier vincta est in quantum vivit vir 
ejus ; si autem mortuus fuerit, libera est ; cut vult nubat ; tantum 
in Domino." On this passage Tertullian, according to the 
printed copies of his works, thus comments. " Sciamus plane 
non sic esse in grceco authentico quomodo in usum exivit, per 
duarum syllabarum aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem, ' Si 
autem dormierit vir ejus' — quasi de futuro sonet ; ac, per hoc, 

11 



303 

On the most cursory inspection, therefore, of 
the works of the early Christian writers, we find 

videatur ad earn pertinere quse jam in fide virum amiserit. Hoc 
quidem si ita esset, in infinitum emissa licentia toties virum de- 
disset quoties amissus esset. Sed, etsi ita esset quasi de futuro, 
tantundem et ad earn pertineret cujus ante fidem morietur ma- 
ritus. Quse vis accipe, dum caetera non evertas." Semler 
professes his inability to understand what is here meant by 
* duarum syllabarum — eversionem ;' he proposes to read emer- 
sionem instead, supposing Tertullian to mean that dormierit was 
a corruption of dormit. In short he perplexes himself and his 
reader, and expends much labour to no purpose, in consequence 
of not perceiving that neither dormierit, nor any other part of 
the verb dormio had any right to appear at all in the passage. 
The true reading is ' Si autem morietur vir ejus.' Making this 
alteration we shall find the sense and reasonableness of the 
comment to be evident enough. " The woman is bound to her 
husband as long as he liveth ; but if he shall have died (si mor- 
tuus fuerit) she is free to marry whom she will : only in the 
Lord." On this, Tertullian proceeds to remark, " we should 
clearly understand that in the GREEK ORIGINAL it is not, 
as, by the fraudulent or undesigned erasure of two syllables, it 
stands in our Latin version * Si autem morietur vir ejus' (if her 
husband shall die) as though it were to be understood relatively 
to the future ; and it should thereby seem to extend to the case 
of a woman who shall lose her husband after her conversion to 
the faith. Were this indeed so, a perpetually renewable dispen- 
sation would be granted to such a one to take a fresh husband 
as often as the former should be removed. But, although it 
were to be thus understood, as relative to the future, still that 
future must be equally confined to her whose husband shall die 
(morietur) before she becomes a Christian. Adopt whichever 
reading you please (mortuus fuerit, or morietur,) provided only 
that you do not subvert the true sense of the remaining words" 



304 

in them a prevailing persuasion that a Greek 
text, which by their citations from it is proved 
to have been, in all material respects, the same 
with our own, was the original composition of 
the Apostles. We never find those who used it 
complaining, as the Latin Fathers did of their 
versions, and as all men who use a translation 

(dum caetera non evertas, with an evident allusion to the prece- 
ding eversionem.) The Greek original, tav Koi\irfir\, he describes 
as accurately translated by the words si mortuus fuerit ; if her 
husband shall have died ; i. e. before she became a Christian. 
But, " in consequence of the fraudulent or accidental erasure of 
the two syllables" tu-us, the remaining letters mor. fuerit were 
formed, by a slight metathesis, into morietur ; and thus, in the 
Latin translation then in use, the reading of the passage came 
to be ' si autem morietur vir ejus.' This, as the zealous mono- 
gamist remarked, being interpreted ' if her husband shall die' 
might be construed as giving permission to Christian females 
(jam in fide) to marry another husband as often as the preceding 
should be removed by death; whereas, in his opinion, the 
passage, according to the original and correct translation, ex- 
tended this privilege to those alone whose husbands shall have 
died (ante fidem) while the wives themselves were in a state of 
heathenism. This was all very plain ; but some careless copyist 
of the works of Tertullian, instead of morietur vir ejus, wrote 
dormierit vir ejus, (the component letters of the two words 
being very much alike) and thus occasioned that obscurity, in 
the passage, which so many useless efforts have been made to 
remove. I will conclude this long note by observing, that the best 
commentary on the words " authenticum Gr cecum" is furnished 
by Tertullian himself in the following passage " Graeco sermoni, 
quo liter as fecit Apostolus, usui est et Mulieres vocare et F&mi- 
nas ; id est tarn yvvaimg quam fyXziag" De OraU 



305 

knowing or suspecting it to be so, must occa- 
sionally do, that the sense of the original is not 
given with perfect accuracy or with sufficient 
force: but they, with a general concurrence, 
take it for granted, that the Greek is the original 
text. Such a persuasion must have been founded 
on ecclesiastical tradition ; and therefore, having 
traced the existence of it among the Fathers of 
a very early period, we are entitled, I must 
insist, to ascend by means of it to the opinions 
of a still earlier age. It may be laid down as 
an axiom that, where a persuasion respecting 
any FACT can be shewn to have prevailed uni- 
versally, and without the smallest contrariety or 
opposition, among the writers of a particular 
sect or community at a given period, the same 
persuasion was also held by the writers belonging 
to the same class in the age immediately prece- 
ding. Because it is impossible that any age 
should at once repudiate the opinions of its pre- 
decessors, and adopt those of a directly opposite 
complexion, without giving rise to controversy, 
without some notice being preserved of the 
causes which led to such a change of sentiment, 
and of the manner in which it was effected. 
Such a change cannot but be gradual ; and we 
have, I think, a perfect right to conclude that 
the writers of the second century would never 
have taken for granted, as we have seen they do, 
an opinion of this nature unless it had descended 



306 

to them, by inheritance as it may be termed, 
from the writers of the first ; from those who 
knew and conversed with the Apostolical Fa- 
thers, and even with some of the Apostles and 
original disciples of our Lord. The notices from 
which their opinion is collected are, it is admitted, 
few, and derived from a restricted number of 
writers ; but this only proves that the point was 
never contested. A negative argument is, in a 
case of this sort, the strongest of all arguments. 
Opinions undisturbed and unquestioned make the 
least considerable figure in history, but disputes 
are sure to be recorded. This conclusion, the 
author of Palseoromaica opposes only by repre- 
senting the whole of this early period of Chris- 
tianity as involved in such obscurity, and so beset 
with contradictions, that all attempts to deduce 
any regular and well-authenticated history from 
the memorials which we possess, must be aban- 
doned in despair. His creed appears to be that 
because some things are dubious there is nothing 
certain. But, though little is recorded with 
respect to the proceedings of the Christian 
Church at large during the eighty years which 
followed the destruction of Jerusalem, that little 
is sufficient to shew how the members of it were 
employed. We have the most distinct evidence, 
as well as the admission of our opponent, to 
assure us, that during this interval the Canon of 
the New Testament was settled; and settled 



307 

upon principles so just, that succeeding ages 
have been able neither to contradict nor to 
improve them. This plainly shews at how early 
a period the means of general consultation were 
possessed by the Church, and how they were 
employed. Where such a spirit of enquiry and 
comparison prevailed, as this classification of 
writings implies, the question, in what language 
were those writings originally drawn up, could 
not have been so totally neglected, as we have 
assurance that it was, unless there had been a 
sense as universally prevailing that it could be 
decided in only one way. To convince us then 
of the opinion entertained, upon this subject, by 
the Church at large, from the beginning, we have 
all the evidence which the case admits, or can re- 
quire ; and, having shewn what that opinion was, 
I must leave it to be determined, by those who 
have revolved the history of that period, and the 
ordinary modes in which knowledge is commu- 
nicated and preserved, whether it be possible 
that such a persuasion should have been thus 
general at so early a date, unless it had been also 
true. 

But although few points seem to be more con- 
clusively established, than that the New Testa- 
ment was written in Greek, this, singular as it 
must appear, is not deemed by the author of 
Palaeoromaica a sufficient reply to the question 
which he has raised. " That Greek was the 



308 

original language of the New Testament," he 
says, " as I would again and again repeat, I 
neither affirm nor deny." The sole conclusion 
to which he clings is, that if the original were 
Greek, still it was not our Greek. " Our pre- 
sent Greek Vulgate seems to be a version from 
the Latin ; and there is scarcely a page from 
which more than one apparent proof might not 
be brought to justify this hypothesis," (p. 356.) 
The nature of these apparent proofs, and the credit 
due to them, may be pretty well estimated from 
the specimens which have been given in the 
preceding pages ; and I have no hesitation in 
declaring my conviction, that all the other ex- 
amples in the several classes, together with the 
objections founded upon them, might be easily 
shewn to be as futile as those which have been 
subjected to examination. Against these must 
be also set the internal proofs of originality, 
which the best critics have discovered in the 
Greek text ; together with the consideration, 
that the hypothesis of a Greek or Latin text, 
or of both, having existed antecedently to the 
present, involves the supposition that these 
texts have disappeared without the slightest 
record being preserved, either by history or tra- 
dition, of any such compositions having ever had 
a being. An assumption, it may be boldly said, 
revolting to common sense ; a case, if not im- 
possible, at least incredible, as being without a 



309 

parallel in the history of the world. Upon this 
issue we may be well contented that the deci- 
sion of the controversy should rest ; and the re- 
sult of the enquiry, it seems to me, will be to 
confirm the sensible remark of Dr. Lardner, that 
" As the Christian Religion is built upon FACTS, 
the study of Ecclesiastical History will be always 
needful, and may be of use to defeat various at- 
tempts of ingenious, but mistaken and preju- 
diced men m ." 

m History of the Apostles, &c. Vol. I. c. ii. $2. ; or Wat- 
son's Theological Tracts, Vol. II. p. 11. 



THE END. 



LONDON: 
PRINTED BY R. GILBERT, 

st. john's square. 



WORKS IN DIVINITY, 

Printed for C. and J. Rivington, 62, St. Pauls Church- 
Yard, and 3, Waterloo-Place, Pall-Mail. 



1. The OLD TESTAMENT, arranged on the Basis of 
Lightfoot's Chronicle, in Historical and Chronological Order, 
in such Manner, that the Books, Chapters, Psalms, Prophecies, 
&c. may be read as one connected History, in the very words 
of the authorized Translation. To the above are added, Six 
Indexes. By the Rev. George Townsend, M.A. of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. In Two very large Volumes, 8vo. \l. \6s. 

Extract from Mr. Home's Introduction to the Critical Study 
of the Holy Scriptures, vol. ii. p. 402. 

" The writer of these pages, on the completion of the present work, 
proposed to himself to attempt a harmony of the entire Bible. This 
laborious undertaking has been happily rendered unnecessary, as it 
respects the Old Testament, by Mr. Townsend's Arrangement. This 
beautifully printed, and carefully executed work, is indispensably ne- 
cessary to those who are preparing for the sacred oflice. The notes 
are very appropriate, and possess the rare merit of compressing a great 
variety of valuable information into a small compass." 

%* The NEW TESTAMENT, arranged on the same Plan, 

is in the Press. 

2. A SUMMARY of CHRISTIAN FAITH and PRAC- 
TICE, confirmed by References to the Text of Holy Scrip- 
ture ; compared with the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies of the 
Church of England ; and illustrated by Extracts from the chief 
of those Works which received the Sanction of Public Autho- 
rity, from the Time of the Reformation to the final Revision of 
the established Formularies. By the Rev. E. J. Burrow, 
D.D. F.R. and L.S. three Vols. l2mo. ll. Is. 

" This is a very valuable Work. To the Younger Clergy, in parti- 
cular, we think it will prove very useful in the composition of Sermons ; 
we mean that portion of it in which copious Extracts are made from 
the Scriptures, which bear upon particular points of Faith or Practice. 
We take our leave of the Author, returning him our best thanks for 
having opposed this barrier to that flood of Fanaticism, which threatens 
to carry every thing before it, until Reason, Religion, and Morality, 
are swept away into the ocean of Infidelity." British Critic, No- 
vember, 1822. ^V 

3. The BOOK of COMMON PRAYER, with Notes, Ex- 
planatory, Practical, and Historical, from approved Writers of 
the Church of England, selected and arranged by the Right 
Rev. Richard Mant, D.D. Lord Bishop of Down and Con- 
nor. Second Edition. In one large Volume, Quarto, Price 
ll. 16s. in boards ; or on Royal Paper, 31. 12s. 



KD n* i? 



< 




•». 








'♦Vr^i* >^» V Deacidified usin 9 the Bookkeeper process 

jiy st, V ^V* Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

IJ& ,0' v ••*L*« O <l* ©°-l #< * ^a Treatment Date: June 2005 

*-*o* *imm&* v ov^ *^hB\ ** PreservationTechnologies r 

4 O. *10Bfcfi^ t ^' 0«J* »*^3bJ 1* A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

|^* ** Vyll^^> * & <dK « *&$!$*? S 111 Thomson Park Drive 

Ay C* lTy>S$S\» *) ~V +*CJ%WJ* % * £► Cranberry Township, PA 16066 k 

i V C3 ♦•»©• «0 "k>. *»*1* «T (724)779-211* >f> 




<§> %> 






« 

4 
' > 




"^ * • • ' # 




-cr 

•. v* : *jdte v*** .*&&£. ^* 








• J rt «a I U«*Rv« • e\ _^. ^ rTS^ta I ©• 4 • 

~i v „ » • 



»^<^ 






•* ♦* 




v .sat?. V 



© 
O, "©• » - 




DOBBS BROS. 

LIBRARY BINDING 



ST. AUGUSTINE SSC • ft _» 



^m FLA. 



W»*5i r 32oa4 




• « « * aO' 



>> * • • • a\> ' 



& *•',.•• <fr 




^ *^^r.- 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




Q 014 381 659 A_ 



